Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/194/2023

JAGDEEP SINGH AGE 49 YEARS SON OF LATE SH JUGAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Jagdeep Singh (age 49 years) son of Late Sh.Jugal Singh, R/o H.No.262, Sector 22-A, U.T., Chandigarh presently working as Superintendent Grade-I in Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. ICICI Bank Ltd., Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager Credit Cards.
2. Credit Information Bureau India Ltd. (CIBIL) one India Bulls Center, Tower 2A, 19^th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai through its Director/Manager.

… Opposite Party(ies)

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that on 30.06.2022, the complainant received a message on his mobile number from the OP-Bank that credit points of complainant will expire tomorrow and kindly redeem points in cashback by clicking th transaction to be done fraudulently but 4 transactions were already done automatically. But IVR called the complainant on 5^th transaction. 3^rd transactions amounting to Rs.7988/- each and one transaction amounting to Rs.6758/- was made on the credit card of the complainant by the unknown source (Ex.C-2). Thereafter, the complainant made a telephonic call at customer care of OP-Bank and requested to block his credit card (Ex.C-3). On 7.6.2022, the complaint was made to the Chandigarh Police through online mode, which is still pending (Ex.C-4). When the complainant applied for a personal loan from SBI, they refused to grant loan on the ground of low CIBIL score i.e., 686, which was earlier more than 900. Due to online fraud committed with the complainant, his CIBIl score has been lowered by the OP No.2 without taking into consideration previous record of payments of the complainant. Since then, OP-Bank instead of taking action against unknown persons who committed cybercrime, making telephonic calls to the complainant for payment of outstanding bill and thereafter pressurizing the complainant for final settlement. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant assuming the genuineness of the message, willingly followed all the instructions provided, ultimately leading to the fraudulent and unlawful withdrawal. This aspect establishes the complainant’s own involvement in the event leading to the loss. The complainant admits to accessing a website that appeared to be identical to the ICICI Bank website and providing the requested information, including name and mobile number. The complainant followed the provided instructions, resulting in a fraudulent withdrawal and subsequent total loss of Rs.30,722. It is also stated that the SMS debit alerts towards the said transactions were also sent on the registered mobile number. The bank does not incur any financial liability arising out of the misuse thereof. It is further stated that the complainant alleges a downgrade in his CIBIL score from 900 to 686 due to the fraud committed against him. However, the complainant has failed to provide any documentary proof to support this claim. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that all the transactions have been done between the complainant & OP No.1. It has nothing to do with the case in hand. Therefore, it is clear that there is no fault or deficiency on the part of the OP No.2. It is further stated that when information/data as required under the CICRA is submitted by a member credit institution, it has no reason to believe that any information therein is incorrect. Further, in terms of Section 30 of CICRA, no suit or other legal proceedings can lie against, inter alia, the OP No.2 for anything done by it in good faith or in pursuance of the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that the OPs failed to provide proper service as some fraudulent withdrawals were done from his credit cards issued by the OPs. Para No.3 of the complaint itself is self-speaking that the complainant himself acknowledged receiving a fraudulent message from “VM-iRewds” as mentioned “Your ICICI Credit Card Points Worth Rs.6889 Will Expire By Tomorrow. Kindly Redeem Points In Cashback By Clicking assuming it to be from ICICI Bank and considering it. The complainant further admitted that afterwards to follow the link a website opened looks like same as ICICI website and subsequently the complainant put it all the asked information like name and mobile number etc. The complainant followed the provided instructions, leading to the fraudulent withdrawal and subsequent total withdrawal of Rs.30,722/-. By his own admission, the complainant engaged in actions that facilitated the perpetration of fraud, making him responsible for the loss. “That as per the case of the complainant the same has been fraudulent withdrawn from his ICICI Bank Credit Card”.
8.     In our opinion, the allegations made by the complainant throughout the complaint relate to fraudulent withdrawals from his ICICI Bank credit card. The nature of the complaint, involves an alleged cyber crime, for which the complainant has already lodged his complaint with the Cyber Crime Police. As the complainant has alleged the fraudulent withdrawals, but the cases of fraud/cheating cannot be entertained by our Commission. Hence, the present complaint being barred of jurisdiction is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issue mentioned above before a Court of competent jurisdiction/ appropriate Forum.
10.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.