K. Radesh filed a consumer case on 09 Nov 2009 against ICICI Bank Ltd., in the Mysore Consumer Court. The case no is CC/09/341 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Karnataka
Mysore
CC/09/341
K. Radesh - Complainant(s)
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)
09 Nov 2009
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE No.1542/F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysore-570009. consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/341
K. Radesh
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
ICICI Bank Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi 2. Sri A.T.Munnoli3. Sri. Shivakumar.J.
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J. B.A., L.L.B., - Member CC 341/09 DATED 09.11.2009 ORDER Complainant K.Radesh, S/o K.S.Kudva, OYHS-A-6, J Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570023. (INPERSON) Vs. Opposite Party Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Kalidasa Road Branch, Mysore. (By Sri.Gerald Castelino, Advocate) Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 09.09.2009 Date of appearance of O.P. : 02.11.2009 Date of order : 09.11.2009 Duration of Proceeding : 7 DAYS PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri. A.T.Munnoli, President 1. Complainant has filed the complaint, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,25,000/- illegally withdrawn of the amount from the account of the complainant and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss and further Rs.10,000/- legal expenses. 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, complainant has S.B. account with opposite party bank No.015201015856. On 25.08.2009, through the customer care, the complainant got information that on previous day through internet banking, there was withdrawal of the amount. On verification, the complainant wrote to the opposite party regarding fraudulent withdrawal and for investigation. Said fraudulent withdrawal resulted monitory loss and also mental agony to the complainant. It is learnt that, there were 4 withdrawals amounting to Rs.1,25,000/-. To avoid further transaction, the account has been blocked by the opposite party. The complainant is unable to operate the account. Said fraudulent withdrawal was due to negligence on the part of the opposite party, amounting to deficiency in service. Despite the letter and telephonic calls, the opposite party is unable to trace the person, who withdrawn the amount fraudulently and illegally. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint. 3. The opposite party in the version, admitted fraudulent withdrawal of the amount from the account of the complainant through internet banking. Procedure regarding internet banking is narrated. Then, it is stated that, in case of transaction, customer is alerted about the internet transfer to the mobile and also to his E-mail address. It was learnt that, on 24.08.2009, there were 4 transfers of money from the account of the complainant and the details of the accounts and amount are narrated. It is contended that, the investigation is not yet completed, as to whether it is fraudulent transaction or not. Also, it is stated, there is prima-facie evidence to show that the account site of the customer has been monitored and hacked by some one. This cyber crime requires specialized investigation. The opposite party is under process of finalizing the procedure. Hence, the complaint is pre-mature. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. 4. In support of their respective contentions, both parties have filed affidavits and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:- 1. Whether the opposite party has proved that, the complaint is pre-mature? 2. If not, whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought? 3. What order? 6. Our findings are as under:- Point no.1 : Affirmative. Point No.1 : Does not survive. Point no.3 : As per the order. REASONS 7. Point no. 1:- The complainant has alleged fraudulent withdrawal of the amount from his account with the opposite party through internet banking. Withdrawal of the amount is admitted by the opposite party. Contention of the opposite party is that, there is prima-facie evidence to show that account site of the complainant has been monitored and hacked by some one and the matter is under investigation and as such, the complaint is pre-matured. 8. In support of the said contention, learned advocate for the opposite party has produced copy of the order of the Honble Karnataka State Commission in appeal No.176/09 dated 06.07.2009. Under similar facts, the Honble State Commission has observed that, if the investigation is incomplete, the complaint is pre-mature. To take any different view, the complainant has not brought to our notice any other law or the authority. Said order of the Honble State Commission is binding on this Forum. In addition to the said order, learned advocate for the opposite party also produced copy of the order of Bangalore District Forum (Urban) in CC No.1059/08 dated 11.07.2008. 9. Considering the order of the Honble State Commission, in the absence of any other contrary law or authority, binding on us, we have to uphold the contention of the opposite party that the complaint is pre-mature. Accordingly, we answer the point in the affirmative. 10. Point No.2:- In view of the finding on first point, this point will not survive for consideration. 11. Point No. 3:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- ORDER 1. The Complaint is dismissed as pre-matured with an observation that the opposite party to complete the investigation at the earliest and further observation is made that, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint in accordance with law. 2. There is no order as to cost. 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 9th November 2009) (A.T.Munnoli) President (Y.V.Uma Shenoi) Member (Shivakumar.J.) Member