Haryana

Karnal

500/2012

Gagandeep Luthra S/o Daya Nand Luthra - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Bhaskar Bhalla

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 500 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.  12.10.2012

                                                               Date of decision:22.09.2016

 

Gagandeep Luthra son of Shri Daya Nand Luthra resident of 320, New Prem Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Sector-12, Urban Estate Karnal.

 

                                                                             …………Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Bhaskar Bhalla Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri  Mohit Goyal Advocate for opposite parties.

                                               

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 on the averments that he was having a credit card no.5176370027064017 of the opposite party. On 12.08.2011 he received a phone call from mobile no.9779974672 from a person representing himself to be an authorized representative of the opposite party and told him that if he was interested in getting his credit card limit enhanced, he will have to submit his credit card with him. He was lured by the assurances given by that person and agreed to the same. Thereafter, on the same day, another call came from mobile no.9509244557 and an executive visited him and showed his identity card of the opposite party. Then, he handed over his credit card after cutting the same into four pieces to that person, in good faith. That person also obtained his signatures on a sheet meant for acknowledgement. It has further been alleged that on 14.08.2011 he received SMS on his mobile indicating that a purchase of Rs.21,785/- was made at the Spice Retail Ltd. Shahdara, New Delhi by some person using his credit card. He immediately approached the opposite party and lodged complaint bearing no.SR-187553477. He represented to the opposite party through e-mails continuously, but the opposite party kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly through email told him to get lodged the First Information Report regarding the incident. Thereafter, he got issued a registered legal notice dated 5.7.2012, but the same also did not yield any result. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; that the complaint is false and vexatious and has been filed just to gain unlawfully and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this Forum.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that credit card of the complainant was used on 3.8.2011, 6.8.2011, 11.08.2011, 14.08.2011 and 16.8.2011. The opposite party never sent any representative to the complainant to enhance his credit limit. The version of the complainant is self contradictory and cannot be relied upon, because if he had cut the credit card into four pieces, the same could not be used by any person.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C9 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, documents Ex.O1 to O6 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                As per the case of the complainant some person contacted him representing himself to be an authorized representative of opposite party and on his assurance of enhancing the credit limit, he gave his credit card to him after cutting the same into four pieces on 12.8.2011, but on 14.8.2011 he received SMS on his mobile that some person had made a purchase of Rs.21,785/- from the Spice Retail Ltd. Shahdara, New Delhi by using his credit card. The opposite party has denied that any such person was authorized by it to contact the complainant for enhancing the credit limit.

7.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset complainant has not given the name and other particulars of the person, who contacted him representing that he was authorized representative of the opposite party. It has been alleged that the identity card of that person was seen by him, but no copy of such identity card was kept by him. If, the said person was not known to the complainant, it was his duty to verify from the opposite party as to whether such person was authorized representative of the opposite party and was competent to enhance the credit limit, but he did not make any such enquiry or verification from the opposite party. Thus, facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the complainant was not vigilant and gave his credit card to some unknown person without verifying his identification properly. Moreover, the stand of the complainant appears to be self contradictory, because had he cut his credit card into four pieces then the same could not be used by any person. It is also important to point out that in the present day the technology has advanced to great extent and cloning of any credit card is possible, if the details of the same are available and such cases of fraud and cheating are on increase these days. Therefore, one has to be conscious and should not share the details of his credit card or ATM card with any person. If, the complainant was cheated by any unknown person the Bank cannot be made to suffer on account of no fault or negligence on its part. The negligence/carelessness was on the part of the complainant, who had given his credit card to some unknown person. Therefore, the complainant cannot take advantage of his own negligence. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination there was any fault or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 22.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member