Delhi

StateCommission

A/12/7

ICICI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

01 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                            Date of Decision: 01.09.2015

 

First Appeal No. 07/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 17/11/2011 passed in complaint case No. 499/08 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, ‘M’ Block, 1^st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002)

 

In the matter of:

ICICI BANK LIMITED

Phelps Building, A-Block,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001

Appellant

 

Versus

 

 

MANJEET SINGH

BD-6, Pitampura,

Delhi-110034.

                                                                                Respondent

 

CORAM

 

SH N P KAUSHIK                             -                  Member (Judicial)

SH. S.C. JAIN                          -                  Member

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?          

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

         

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

          The Appellant i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd., A-Block, New Delhi has challenged the orders dated 17/11/2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum, New Delhi.  Vide impugned the orders the appellant/OP to activate the Demat account of the appellant within a period of one month and compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lakh was also awarded.

 

Facts in brief are that the complainant Sh. Manjeet Singh had demat account with the appellant/OP in ICICI Bank Ltd., New Delhi branch demat account was linked to Saving Bank Account of the complainant.  The account remained allied in August 2006, in around September, 2007 the Demat account was frozen. Intimation on behalf of be sent by the appellant/OP to the complainant.  Vide letter dated 1/8/2006, ICICI Web Trade Ltd.  asked the complainant to submit the account opening form  for the purpose of reopening the account.  It has also informed to the complainant that the record of the appellant/op got destroyed in floods.  Complainant thereafter resubmitted his account opening form in December 2006.  Up till 2008, the account was not reactivated.  Complainant submitted his statement on the value of shares in January/February, 2008 showing the loss incurred by him due to non activate of his account.

The defence raised by the appellant/OP before the Ld. District Forum was that the documents have been fully damaged due to flooding in the storage area as there were heavy rain in Mumbai on 26^th July, 2005.  Complainant was asked to resubmit the said documentation. A reminder dated 9^th December,2006 was sent to the complainant.  Contention of the appellant/OP was that the complainant did not submit the form and the account was temporarily suspended. Complainant filled up the form in January 2008 which was rejected.

On the basis of the aforesaid plea and counted plea on the part of the Ld. District Forum passed the order dated 17/11/2011 which was impugned before this Commission.  In the present appeal the appellant/OP could not reactive the account of the complainant due to tardy attitude of the complainant.  

Nothing has placed on record by the appellant/OP in support of its contention on the part of the complainant when he was called upon to furnish the account opening form a fresh on the contrary it is submitted the case of the appellant/OP that due to flood of their office, records got damaged.  In any case it was clear case of deficiency in service.  We, therefore, do not find illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 17/11/2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum.  Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

 

        File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

(S.C.  JAIN)

MEMBER

 

(m)