Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1182/2012

Asha Rani Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

 

                            CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                              (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                       ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                               NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.1182/2012                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

       Mrs. Asha Rani Sood,

      136, Medha Apartments,

     Mayur Vihar, I-Extn.

      Delhi-110091.

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

           ICICI Bank,

          9-A, PHELPS Building,

        A-Block, Connaught Place,

        New Delhi-01.

 

                                                                                                                                                  .....…...OPPOSITE PARTY

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is credit card holder with OP bank  bearing NO.4477473874397032  with a credit card limit of Rs. 1 lac.  The credit card in question was upgraded by the OP and a new gold card was issued against the same to the complainant.  On 20.11.2011, the complainant handed over the credit card in question to the Collection Agent after cutting the card into two pieces to one Sh. Manish.  The agent, Sh. Manish misused the card and purchased a electronic equipment of Rs.29,300/-  on 21.11.2011 on the same day.  The   complainant received a SMS alert regarding the same  when she was busy with her school work.  It is further alleged that the aforesaid transaction took place due to connivance of the OP bank.    The complainant lodged a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman but the Ombudsman refused to entertain the same under the pretext that the present complaint is outside his purview.  Being dis-aggrieved by the Ombudsman order, complainant approached this Forum for redressal of her grievance.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP denied any deficiency in service on its part. It is stated by the OP that after investigation it is found that no person by name Sh. Manish was sent by OP bank to the complainant.  Even. If such a person has ever visited the complainant, the complainant is victim of fraud for which she herself is liable.  It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions pertaining to the credit card surrender clause VB clearly enumerates that the customer should give notice in writing to the bank and request it for termination of the card account. The said notice will not affect till the card has been defaced by cutting of the top right hand corner ensuring that both the hologram and magnetic strip have been cut and has been received by bank.  It is further stated that the complainant is quiet negligent and careless towards the security of her credit card, hence, OP is not liable for the relief claim  and prayed for the  dismissal of complaint.

3.     Both the parties have filed their  evidences by way of affidavit.

4.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.     Perusal of the present complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues.  The complainant in the present complaint has alleged that she handed over the credit card in question to the Collection Agent after cutting the card into two pieces to one Sh. Manish. The agent of the OP misused the credit card in question by playing fraud resulting in monetary loss to the complainant. It is stated by OP that no person by name Sh. Manish was sent by OP bank to the complainant.  It is further stated by the OP that the complainant failed to deface the card  by cutting of the top right hand corner ensuring that both the hologram and magnetic strip have been cut and has been received by bank, hence bank is not liable for the relief claim.  It is very difficult for us to come to the conclusion that whether any forgery or fraud has been played by the OP with the complainant, the same can be verified by the adducing the evidence which is not possible in the present summary proceedings.  The issues referred herein required elaborate evidence which cannot be dealt in summary proceedings by the District Fora.

6.     It is apparent that the complainant is asking for the relief which require lengthy evidence and cross-examination.  The cross-examination of witness is life blood of legal system.  The trustworthiness of a witness can only be examined in cross-examination.  The Civil Court not being a summary trial court can easily go the root of every problem.  Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

7.     In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

8.     In view of the above, we are inclined to hold that that the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts as well as law regarding the alleged loss in question.  The issues raised in the present complaint required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, complainant can take advantage of the decision rendered in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institution 1995 (3) SCC 583.  

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 17/02/2020.

          

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                         MEMBER