Delhi

North East

CC/491/2024

MR. RAJ KUMAR SUNPEDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No.491/24

 In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Raj Kumar Supedia S/o Lt. Sh. Jagdish Pal, R/o A 29, St. No. 01, Bhajanpura, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.       3.	ICICI Bank Ltd. Through its branch Head Having Branch at 9 A, Phelps Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001   ICICI Bank Ltd. Through it’s The Chief General Manager, Having regd. Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara 390007 (Gujarat)   The Chief General Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051	Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

   Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties.
2. As per the complaint, the Complainant is maintaining a saving bank account with Opposite Party Bank and an incident of fraud allegedly happened with the Complainant with respect to the said saving account. As per the Complainant, on the date of incident i.e. 24.10.23 while Complainant trying to withdraw money from ICICI bank ATM (Opposite Party) by using his debit card, two individuals entered the ATM room and snatched his debit card and intercepted the transaction which was already in process. It is alleged that his card was exchanged by the miscreants and two transactions of Rs. 99,999/- and Rs.99,997/- were done by miscreants using his card. The Complainant immediately reported the matter to Opposite Party bank and also lodged an FIR reporting the incident. Complainant also raised the matter before the banking Ombudsman alleging cheating and fraud. The Opposite Party bank had conducted investigation into his complaint which allegedly was arbitrary and illogical as bank had concluded that said transactions were found valid since those were PIN verified. It is alleged that Opposite Party bank has not replied to the claim of Refund/reversal of the fraudulent debits of Rs. 99,999/- and Rs.99,997/- despite several reminders. On the basis of above facts, the Complainant has alleged deficiency of service and cause negligence on the part of Opposite Parties.
3. Arguments on the admissibility of the complaint heard. File perused.
4. The perusal of complaint and material on record shows that the complainant has alleged that an incident of fraud happened with the Complainant with respect to the said saving account maintained with Opposite Party Bank. It is also submitted by the complainant that he lodged an FIR under section 420 IPC reporting the incident and also raised the matter with various authorities including Cyber Cell and banking Ombudsman alleging cheating and fraud.
5. Complainant has filed reply given by Opposite Party to the legal notice sent by the complainant. As per said document, Opposite Party had concluded in their investigation that the disputed card swipe transactions were authenticated through debit card pin. All the disputed transactions were CHIP read transactions. The Opposite Party bank had clarified that as per the terms and conditions governing the issuance and usage of debit card, the card holder is solely responsible for use confidentiality and protection of the pin as well as for all orders and information changes entered into the account using such pin.
6. Here, we would like to rely upon the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Civil appeal No. 7289 of 2009 titled as The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & ANR Vs. R. Chandramohan dated 27.03.2023 wherein it is held that:-

“The Proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act.”

7. In view of above discussion and cited authority, we are of the considered view that since allegations of fraud and cheating are involved, this commission is not empowered to adjudicate upon the present complaint.
8. Thus, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Order announced on 11.11.24.

Copy of this order be given to Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)                 Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President