Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1027/2016

Parvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishek Bhateja

08 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1027/2016
Date of Institution	:	25/11/2016
Date of Decision	:	08/08/2018

 

Parvinder Singh S/o Sh. Iqbal Singh, Resident of House No. 95, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.

....Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Indusind Bank, SCO No.27, Sector 27, Ground, First & Second Floor, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Prop.

 

[2]     Indusind Bank, IBL House, 3^rd Floor, Cross B Road, MIDC, J.B. Nagar, Off. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400059, India, through its Manager/ Prop.

 

[3]     ICICI Lombard, Plot No. 149, Fourth Floor, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Prop.

 

[4]     ICICI Lombard Healthcare, ICICI Bank Tower, 9^th Floor, Plot No.12, Financial District, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500032, Andhra Pradesh, through its Manager/ Prop.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Abhishek Bhateja, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Arun Dogra, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
	:	Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP No.3 & 4.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Parvinder Singh, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Indusind Bank and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that being an account holder of Indusind Bank, the Complainant was issued Platinum Exclusive Chip Debit Card which was insured & carried various protections including card liability of Rs.3,00,000/-. On 24.05.2015, the said card, along with other belongings, was stolen by some unknown person, who misused the Card by withdrawing Rs.2,00,000/-. Since the card was insured, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties by every possible means to indemnify him the loss of Rs.2,00,000/- supported by requisite documents. Notwithstanding this, when the Opposite Parties dilly-dallied the matter, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 27.09.2016 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the protection feature of the card was only in respect of Lost Card Liability meaning thereby if the card is lost and the same has been used/swiped to make purchases, as at the relevant point of time no password was required for making purchases by way of swiping the card. The transaction in the case of the Complainant, if any, are Pin Based Transaction and money has been allegedly withdrawn from ATM, which cannot be covered under the head of Lost Card Liability. There was carelessness on the part of the Complainant himself, as all the financial transactions are done through a secret password and the Complainant was ought not to share the same with anyone in order to protect his interest from illegal and unauthorized use of the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 have contested the claim of the Complainant by filing their separate written statement, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that under the Policy, all pin based transactions are not covered and hence no liability can be fixed under the policy of insurance. It has been asserted that for processing the claim, the Complainant was requested to submit certain documents, which he failed to submit despite reminders. Hence, for non-supply of documents, his case was closed. In case the same are supplied, the answering Opposite Parties shall reopen the case to take a decision on merits/facts. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statements and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinders.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Parties.
8.         On perusal of the policy terms, we find that the policy covers all fraudulent utilization of lost or stolen Indusind Bank Limited debit cards at point of sale and merchant establishment’s transactions, the cover is valid for two days pre-reporting and all Pin based transactions are not covered. In the present case, the transaction has been done after usage of ATM Pin. The transaction could be made on the card only using the ATM Pin. The card cannot be used for making any withdrawal of amount or for running the same at a merchant without keying in the ATM Pin which is generated by the cardholder himself. It appears that the Complainant has not taken sufficient steps or measures to protect his ATM Pin. Hence, no liability can be fixed under the policy of insurance.  It is also seen that in this case, the Complainant has submitted the documents for the first time to the bank only on 19.07.2015; whereas, the alleged transaction which is disputed in the present Complaint took place on 25.4.2015. Hence the transaction dispute claim has not been raised with the Insurance Company within two days of the alleged transaction, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.   
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                                    

08^th Aug.2018

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”