DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.177/2014
Santu Vishwakarma
R/o 101, Street no.1, TF 10,
Mahipalpur Extension,
Near Shiv Murti Complex,
New Delhi-34.
….Complainant
Versus
- ICICI Bank Ltd.
D-16, South Extension II,
New Delhi-110049.
- Oberoi Enterprises
A-87, Oberoi’s Building,
Near SBI Main Road,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070.
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 06.05.2014 Date of Order : 30.01.2018
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that his ICICI debit card No. 4693750396017604 had been used for large transactions of Rs.31,500/- and Rs.3,500/- at exactly 5.50 PM on 10.11.2012 and his debit card was linked with the saving/ salary account No. 039601515120. He immediately informed to OP-1 bank about the transactions who gave the reference number as SR245716651 at 06.10 PM. According to him, OP bank did not take any action despite number of assurances made in this behalf; lateron it transpired that the debit card of the complainant had been used by one girl named Diksha at the location of OP-2. According to the complainant, OP-1 bank debited huge amounts without checking his signature or without asking OP-2 to show any identity proof. Hence, it is prayed that OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant.
In the reply of OP-1 has inter-alia admitted that the withdrawal of the amount from the debit card of the complainant. However, it is denied that the transactions were not done by the complainant himself. According to OP-1, the complainant had himself acted negligently and loss, if any, caused to him was due to his own negligence and hence he cannot blame OP-1 bank for the same. It is denied that OP-1 bank can check the identity of the person using the debit card before approving the transaction. It is stated that the transaction is to be approved by the bank when the original card is used, which has been done in the present case. Hence, the complainant is trying to transfer burden of his negligent acts upon OP-1 bank which cannot be permitted.
In the replication to the reply of OP-1, complainant has inter-alia stated that cause of action arose to him when debit card in question had been lost and the same was misused on 10.11.2012.
OP-2 is exparte.
Affidavits in evidence have been filed on behalf of the parties.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of OP-1.
We have heard the arguments of the counsel for OP-1 and have also gone through the record very carefully.
Earlier none had appeared on behalf of the complainant on 19.12.14 and 23.02.15. Thereafter, none appeared on his behalf on 21.10.16, 05.12.16, 04.09.17 and again on 20.11.17. We directed issuance of notice of pairavi to him for today. Notice of pairavi issued to him has been received back unserved with the postal report ‘address incomplete, name of the house owner and block number may also be given’.
From the pleadings of the parties, it becomes crystal clear that the complainant had lost debit card in question on or before 10.11.2012 but he did not lodge any report either with OP-1 or with the police in this regard and that he reported the matter to OP-1 bank only after the amount of Rs. 31,500/- and 3500/- had been withdrawn by using his debit card from his saving/ salary account on 10.11.2012 at 05.50 PM.
Therefore, in our considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. No deficiency has been made out against OP-2. He may file civil suit for recovery against OP-2.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 30.01.2018.
