View 6476 Cases Against ICICI Bank
P.Nanda filed a consumer case on 12 Jul 2022 against The Chief Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd in the South Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/367/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Nov 2022.
Date of Complaint Filed : 28.09.2016
Date of Reservation : 28.06.2022
Date of Order : 12.07.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.367/2016
TUESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF JULY 2022
P.Nanda,
S/o. Packirisamy,
A.P.1184, 4th Street,
Thendral colony,
Anna Nagar West,
Chennai- 600 040. ... Complainant
..Vs..
1.The Chief Manager,
ICICI Bank Ltd,
ICICI Towers, IInd floor,
Plot No.24, South Phase,
Ambattur Industrial Estate,
Chennai.
2.ICICI Bank,
K.P Tower, A-Block,
West Wing, No.159, Arcot Road,
Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. ... Opposite Parties
******
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. C.Ananda Ramani
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Exparte
On perusal of records and after having treated the written arguments of the Complainant as oral arguments, we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,
1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to immediately withdraw the monetary claim of Rs.45,952/- against the Complainant and provide him NOC stating that the Complainant owes no dues payable to the Opposite Party and direct the Opposite Parties to pay damages for sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of services.
2. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
The Complainant is the customer of the 1st Opposite Party. He availed credit card facility from the Opposite Parties his credit card number is 5239511076404001 and he utilized the credit card facility and bill payments were made regularly till 21.09.2015 while the petitioner is residing at Chennai, on 08.09.2015 he received a SMS at 21:15 hours for a fraud transaction of USD 9.86 made at Fannie Mae and Euro 369 made at orange AV Puert, USA. He immediately contacted the Bank, registered the complaint for fraud transactions through his mobile as Bank Red NO is 382015120 vide NO.ICICI-SR382015411 and requested to cancel his card and to issue a new card. On verification of statement generated as on 12.09.2015 he found only the fraud transaction for euro 369 made at orange AV Puert, USA. Fraud transaction of USD 9.86 made at Fannie Mae was not reflected. He had made a payment for a sum of Rs.10,745 being the payment spent on 17.08.2015 and 19.08.2015 as found in the said statement, since he had not made any transaction as found in the statement, though his previous balance was Rs.9,744.58 p but he made payment of Rs. 10,745 hence according to him there is no outstanding due in his credit card while so he received a statement generated as on 11.10.2015 reflecting a total amount due of Rs.29,532/-. The respondent had them self generated the statement reflecting the credit and debit entries of the same fraud transactions and made him liable to the fraud transactions it was clear from the statement dated 12.10.2015, been produced. The present claim of Rs.45,952/- made including the fraud transaction, is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice he had filed documentation of the post-paid mobile number and bank statement till 10th of September showing that he was in India at the time of fraudulent transactions which was effected in foreign country he was under the bonafide impression the 1st Opposite Party would take necessary action to recover the amount from the culprits, but to his shock and surprise he received a notice dated 14.07.2016 vide Sl.No.388 in LokAdalat case number 39513/2016 conducted by Tamil Nadu services authority, to appear on 28.07.2016 for the bank due dispute. The Opposite Parties being the premier banks in India, would have been diligent and prompt in their service to the potential users and include facilities in connection with banking. He explained the dereliction of duty and the negligence on the part of the 1st Opposite Party by their irresponsible, negligent attitude adopted by the officers of the Opposite Parties by their evasive methods, indifference shown and inexcusable conduct in not curing his difficulties instead enquired him on the fraud transaction taken place in different foreign countries and adopted and frantic method of exerting the said amount from him who was in no way liable to pay such huge amount for no fault on him. He met in person the 1st Opposite Party's officers with a fond hope to clear the mistake generated in the statement and sought an explanation for indulging in such dereliction of their duty responsibility and obligations to the customers causing incalculable financial loss and a serious mental agony, portraying him as a defaulter from the supine indifference without considering the serious consequences caused to him, realized that they could not give any satisfactory answer for the fraudulent transaction held on his credit card and to how the transaction was being executed by the third party or in connivance with Bank officials, hence he had been put into much hardship and financial inconvenience for more than 12 months, due to their negligent act with grave deficiency of service and unfair trade practice so far the Opposite Parties had not taken steps to retrieve the mistake the Opposite Parties are liable and responsible for their nonprofessional act due to negligent attitude and deficiency of service in handling his case he was put to intolerable mental agony and financial inconvenience and loss hence the Complaint.
3. The Complainant has filed his Proof Affidavit, Written Arguments and marked documents as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10. In spite of sufficient notice to the Opposite Parties, they have not appeared and set exparte.
Points for consideration:-
1) Whether the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service to the Complainant?
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief/s claimed in the Complaint and for any other relief/s?
Point no.1:-
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had availed the credit card of
the Opposite Parties vide Credit Card No.5239511076404001. It is in dispute that the Complainant had received SMS on 08.09.2015 between 21:00 hrs to 21:15 hrs., a fraudulent transaction taken place as if his credit card was used in the foreign countries transacting USD 9.86 made at Fannie Mae and EUR 369 made at Orange AV Puert, USA, immediately the said fraudulent transactions were reported through his mobile as Bank Red Number: 382015120 vide complaint No. ICICI-SR382015411. The Complainant in spite of production of documents to the Bank showing he was in India during the fraudulent transactions taken place, no action found to taken, instead enquired him as a defaulter apart from referring for the dues under his credit card before the Lok Adalat before Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority by the 1st Opposite Party. The Complainant had marked Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 being his HDFC bank statement of account for the period from 01.09.2015 to 10.09.2015 and Vodafone bill for the period 20.08.2015 to 19.09.2015 respectively, which clearly shows that the Complainant was very well in India during the said fraudulent transactions taken place on 08.09.2015. Further from Ex.A-3 the transaction details generated by the Opposite Parties on 11.09.2015 reflects fraudulent transaction took place on 08.09.2015 at orange AV Puerto Valencia ES for EUR 369, alone and not USD 9.86 made at Fannie Mae. From Ex.A-4 being the statement dated 11.10.2015 generated by the Opposite Parties the fraudulent transaction taken place at orange Av Puerto Valencia ES had been shown "Temporary Fraud Credit" on 14.09.2015 and as "Temporary Fraud Debit" on 06.10.2015. From Ex.A-5 being the statement dated 11.11.2015 generated by the Opposite Parties wherein the temporary fraud debit of Rs.28,532/- made on 06.10.2015 was claimed along with other charges amounting to Rs.30,733.60p. From Ex.A-6 being the statement dated 11.12.2015 generated by the Opposite Parties wherein the previous balance of Rs.30,733.60p, which includes temporary fraud debit of Rs.28,532/- made on 06.10.2015, was claimed along with other charges amounting to Rs.32,727.23p. From Ex.A-7 being the statement dated 11.01.2016 generated by the Opposite Parties wherein the previous balance of Rs.32,727.23p which includes temporary fraud debit of Rs.28,532/- made on 06.10.2015, was claimed along with other charges amounting to Rs.34,840.0423p. From Ex.A-8 being the statement dated 11.02.2016 generated by the Opposite Parties wherein the previous balance of Rs.34,840.04p which includes temporary fraud debit of Rs.28,532 made on 06.10.2015, was claimed along with other charges amounting to Rs.36,548.86p And from Ex.A-9 being the statement dated 11.07.2016 generated by the Opposite Parties wherein the previous balance of Rs.45,952.70p was claimed by the Opposite Parties. Lok Adalat notice dated 14.07.2016 sent by Tamil Nadu state legal services authority to the Complainant for his appearance on 28.07.2016 was marked as Ex. A-10. The contention made in the complaint that the Opposite Parties being the premier banks in India would have been diligent and prompt in their service to the potential users, the Complainant, which includes facilities with connection with banking. Further contended that when he met in person the officers of the 1st Opposite Party, they could not explain the fraudulent transaction made using his credit card which indulges in such a serious dereliction of duty, responsibility and obligation to the customers like the Complainant causing incalculable financial loss and the serious mental agony portraying the Complainant as a defaulter and they also could not explain the circumstances of the fraudulent transaction being executed by the third party or in connivance with Bank officials. Due to negligent attitude and deficiency of service in handling his case which caused him intolerable mental agony and financial inconvenience and loss.
On the facts and circumstances of the case this commission holds that the Opposite Parties by not taking any proper steps and measures in resolving the fraudulent transaction taken place on 08.09.2015 by using the Complainant's credit card, which has been carried forward blindly in their consecutive statements and claiming knowing fully well the said transaction was a fraudulent transaction as noted in their statement itself as "Temporary Fraud Debit", clearly amounts to deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant. Hence this commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.
Point no.2:-
As discussed and decided Point No.1 in favour of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to withdraw their claim of Rs.45,952.70p made under statement dated 11.07.2016 as found in Ex.A-9, except any other amount pending due in the Complainant's credit card account excluding the above said amount of Rs.45,952.70p and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards cost of this complaint. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered.
In the result, the Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to withdraw their claim of Rs.45,952.70p (Rupees Forty Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Two and Seventy Paise Only) made under statement dated 11.07.2016 in the Complainant's credit card account, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards mental agony and deficiency of service and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards cost of this complaint, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of the order, failing which, the Complainant is entitled to recover the above amounts together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realization.
In the result the Complaint is allowed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 12th of July 2022.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 01.09.2015 to 10.092015 | Copy of HDFC Bank Statement in favour of Complainant |
Ex.A2 | 20.08.2015 to 19.09.2015 | Copy of Vodafone Bill |
Ex.A3 | 11.09.2015 | Copy of Credit card statement of ICICI Bank |
Ex.A4 | 11.10.2015 | Copy of Credit card statement of ICICI Bank |
Ex.A5 | 11.11.2015 | Copy of Credit card statement of ICICI Bank |
Ex.A6 | 11.12.2015 | Copy of Credit card statement of ICICI Bank |
Ex.A7 | 11.01.2016 | Copy of Credit card statement of ICICI Bank |
Ex.A8 | 11.02.2016 | Copy of Credit card statement of ICICI Bank |
Ex.A9 | 11.07.2016 | Copy of Credit card statement of ICICI Bank |
Ex.A10 | 14.07.2016 | Copy of Notice copies of Tamil Nadu State Legal service Authority |
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-
NIL
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.