WHEN  THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT TAKE PROPER MEASURES TO SAFEGUARD THE CUSTODY OF THE CREDIT CARD AND HANDED OVER THE SAME, TO AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON, IF ANY TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE, THEN THE BANK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE SAME.

OIV (2014) CPJ 82 (UT)

UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder, President; Mr. Dev Raj & Mrs. Padma Pandey, Members

ICICI BANK LIMITED—Appellant

versus

SANDEEP SHARDA—Respondent

First Appeal No. 513 of 2013—Decided on 22.1.2014

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 15 — Banking and Financial Institutions Services — Credit Card — Enhancement of limit — Form filled up andsubmitted to alleged agent of Bank — Fraudulent cash withdrawal — Deficiency in service alleged — Unfair trade practice — District Forum allowed complaint — Hence appeal — Card given to alleged agent after tearing into pieces, the same cannot be used — Case put up by complainant appears to be concocted one — ATM card cannot be operated unless a person knows the four digit PIN code — Complainant not only handed over the credit card but also disclosed the PIN Number to that person — Impugned order set aside.

[Paras 12, 14, 17]

Result : Appeal allowed.

Case referred:

State Bank of India v. K.K. Bhalla, II (2011) CPJ 106 (NC). (Relied)

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Ms. Aparna Jain, Advocate.

FACTS OF THE CASE-The Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that since the agent of the opposite party Bank, with bank stationary (brochure, etc.), came to the complainant, he had no reason to disbelieve him. She further submitted that, it was under these circumstances, that the Credit Card was handed over to the agent of the opposite party, and if he misused the same, then the bank was responsible for the same. She further submitted that the District Forum was right, in accepting the complaint.

 No doubt, in the first instance, when intimation was given by the complainant, to the opposite party, it temporarily reversed the entry of entire amount of Rs. 29,000, i.e. the amount, which was withdrawn, by an unauthorized person, to whom the Credit Card was allegedly handed over by the complainant. However, later on, when the bank investigated the matter, and came to the conclusion, that it did not send any agent to the complainant, to collect the Credit Card and he (complainant), was at fault, for handing over the said Credit Card, to an unauthorized person,and it (opposite party) was not responsible for such an act, it made a demand of the amount due to it, against him (complainant), on the basis of such Credit Card. Such temporary reversal of the entry of the aforesaid amount, in the Credit Card account of the complainant, did not mean that the bank accepted the contention of the complainant or its liability.

16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMERCIAL PURPOSE,COMPLAINANT NOT CONSUMER

 

III (2013) CPJ 672 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Presiding Member

PDC MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED—Appellant

versus

AXIS BANK LIMITED—Respondent

First Appeal No. 88 of 2013 against Order dated 13.12.2012 in Complaint Case No. CC/12/274 of State Commission, Maharashtra—Decided on 4.7.2013

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 21(a)(ii) — Consumer — Commercial purpose — ATM Cards distributed to Sales Commission Agents of company — Bank account and ATM Cards stood in name of company — Commission payments to agents were towards commercial service — Operation of bank account was to be in terms of agreement between two parties — State Commission rightly observed that it is not a case of simple banking service but a camouflaged commercial activity was being carried out through this system in which 10060 ATM Cards has been activated by bank — Complainant cannot be treated as ‘consumer’.

DEFECT IN MACHINE

I (2013) CPJ 749 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member & Mr. Justice K.S. Chaudhari, Member

STATE BANK OF INDIA—Petitioner

versus

OM PRAKASH SAINI—Respondent

Revision Petition No. 2382 of 2012 from Order dated 17.2.2012 in Appeal No. 860/2011 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula—Decided on 18.1.2013

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g), 21(b) — Banking and Financial Institutions Services — Withdrawal from ATM — Defect in machine alleged — Amount could not be withdrawn — Slip showing deduction from account — Refund of amount denied — Alleged deficiency in service — District Forum allowed complaint — State Commission dismissed appeal — Hence revision — Camera is fixed only on the face of user and not on the keys of ATM and delivery window — Non-supply of video footage had no bearing on claim of complainant — No other person complained for not receiving money on that day — It cannot be presumed that complainant did not receive Rs. 5,000 from ATM machine — Impugned order set aside.

Result : Revision Petition allowed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Previous

Next