Delhi

East Delhi

CC/377/2015

RAMA SAXENA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 377/15

 

Mrs. Rama Saxena

40B, New MIG Flats

Mayur Vihar Phase - III

Delhi = 110 096                                                                                                                              ….Complainant

                                                                   Vs.                                

1. ICICI Bank

B-10, West Jyoti Nagar

Near Durgapuri Chowk

Delhi - 110 094

 

2. Corporate Office

ICICI Bank Towers

Bandra-Kurla Complex

Mumbai - 400 051                                                                                                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 28.05.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 14.02.2017

Judgment Passed on: 28.02.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by Mrs. Rama Saxena, the complainant against ICICI Bank (OP-1) and Corporate Office of ICICI Bank (OP-2) with allegations of deficiency in service.

2.        Briefly narrated facts are that the complainant had purchased ICICI travel card no. 4731340300616891 on 17.10.2014.  The said travel card was loaded with 1000 British pound against Rs. 1,01,574.90/-.  The validity inscribed on the card was 4/2012 to 4/2015, which was brought to the knowledge of the Manager by the complainant.  It is stated that she was assured by the said Manager that the validity of the card would be for 2 years and will comence from the date of activation of the card i.e. 17.10.2014.

It is stated that on 25.02.2015, a fee of 1.69 GBP was charged, when the complainant withdrew 200 GBP, despite assurance that no charges would be levied.  Further, the complainant tried online transaction on 06.04.2015, which was unsuccessful.  The complainant contacted the Durgapuri chowk branch on 07.04.2015, where she was informed that the card was valid upto April 2015 only.  On 08.04.2015, the complainant activated the travel card for online transaction to pre order goods, which again failed.  The transaction was unsuccessful due to payment error of failed transaction.  The complainant was asked to write to ICICI customer care. She got different answer from Mumbai office and Delhi office.  The complainant has alleged that she was not able to use 797 GBP, balance in the travel card and deprived of pre-ordering goods.  The complainant wrote several mails to OP for redressal of her complaint.  A letter was sent on 06.05.2015 to ICICI bank, Head office seeking resolution of the inconvenience faced by her in foreign land.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment. 

3. OP-2 filed their written statement after the service of the notice of present complaint, where they stated that travel card no. 4731340300616891 was issued to the complainant on 17.10.2014 with welcome kit, which was activated on the same day itself.  It was stated that the complainant had consented to accept the card with validity from 4/2012 to 4/2015.  Further, it was submitted that the online transaction of the complainant was declined as the complainant had given wrong inputs and wrong information.  The reason for failed transaction on 07.04.2015 was entering “Invalid CVV2” (Card holder did not activate the Ecom transation).

On 08.04.2015, the complainant tried for another transaction, but she had activated Ecom transaction only for “52.00 GBP” amount, but she was trying for “59.86 GBP” amount.  Hence, the transaction was declined on account of the amount being greater. 

On 24.04.2015, the complainant had not activated the Ecom transaction and was trying for Ecom, due to which her transaction was declined. 

OP took the plea that the card was successfully used by the complainant for cash withdrawal and regular swipe transaction.  It was only in case of online transaction, it did not work and that too due to wrong inputs provided by the complainant.  Thus, no deficiency in service could be attributed to OP and rest of the contents of the complaint were denied. 

Welcome letter with the travel card as Annexure A, table of charges applicable on withdrawal as Annexue B, copy of proof of declined transaction as Annexue C, mail communication with the complaint as Annexure D & E and application for travel card as Annexure F are annexed with WS. 

4. Rejoinder to WS of OP-2 was filed by the complainant, where all the averments of the complaint were reiterated and that of the WS were denied.  It was stated that OP had charged 3.18 GBP and 0.46 GBP as inactivity charges from 26.02.2015 to 25.08.2015. Further, refund of money was also denied. 

Smt. Rama Saxena filed another affidavit stating the discrepencies in documents filed by OP on record and copies supplied to her. 

5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where she examined herself and reiterated the contents of the complaint.

OP examined on affidavit Shri Santosh Singh, Manager-Legal, who stated the contents of the WS on oath and reliance was placed on Ex. A i.e. welcome letter of the travel card. 

Additional affidavit of Ms. Akriti Mishra, Manager-Legal, ICICI Bank Ltd. was also filed by OP, where they filed certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and stated that set of documents inadvertently got divided into 2 sets due to oversight. 

6. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant was issued a travel card with validity from 4/2012 to 4/2015 on 17.10.2014.  It is also admitted fact that 790.40 GBP have been refunded to the complainant. 

The annexures, annexed with the WS, reveal that the online transaction of 07.04.2015 and 08.04.2015 was declined due to entering wrong CVV2 and being invalid transaction respectively.  These annexures are autogenerated documents and cannot be tampered.  Hence, it makes clear that the online transaction were declined due to wrong inputs being entered by the complainant.  As far as levy of charges of 1.69 GBP on withdrawal of 200 GBP are concerned, the complainant and OP are bound by the terms and conditions  Hence, no verbal assurance can supersede the written terms and conditions.

The complainant was issued a travel card on 17.10.2014 with validity from April 2012 to April 2015, to which the complainant had consented as stated by OP.  This, implies that the travel card was valid only for 6 months as against 36 months as per terms and conditions.  Further, in their WS, OP has stated that the card was valid till April 2015 only, then why inactivity charges deducted from the complainant’s account.  That being so, when the card was valid till 4/2015, how come inactivity charges were deducted on 25.08.2015.  Thus, the plea taken by OP that the complainant had consented to the validity of the travel card as inscribed on it is falsified and cannot be believed.  Hence, we are of the opinion that OP had acted in arbitrary manner by issuing travel card with only 6 months validity instead of 36 months as well as deducting inactivity charges. 

Hence, we direct OP to refund Rs. 332.82 (3.18 GBP + 0.46 GBP = 3.64 GBP x Rs. 96.19) charges on account of inactivity charges and Rs. 30,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in services. This OP liable to pay Rs. 30,332.82. This shall act as a deterrent on OP.  Order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of order.     

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President