State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sharad R. Khekale vs Icici Bank Ltd. on 25 February, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2010 Date of filing : 05/01/2010 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 04 OF 2009 Date of order : 25/02/2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PUNE Sharad R. Khekale R/at D2, flat No.1004, Lake Town, Bibvewadi, Pune 411 037. Appellant/org. complainant V/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. S.No.46, Somshankar Chambers, Pune Satara Road, Opp. City Pride, Pune 411 037. Respondent/org. O.P. Quorum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member Appearance : None for the appellant as well as for the respondent.
-: ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None is present for the appellant nor he had served the respondent though he was allowed hamdast. Today, on returnable date, neither appellant is present nor respondent is appearing to have been duly served. Hence, we perused the impugned judgement. We are finding that the appellant is a resident of Pune and is having account with ICICI Bank at Somshankar Chambers Branch on Pune-Satara Road, Opp. City Pride, Pune. He had taken Internet Banking facility from the Bank. On 28/12/2007 at about 12.20 noon he went to Mukundnagar ATM Centre of the Bank. He wanted to update the account. It was then transpired that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was withdrawn from his account and was transferred to somebody elses account. Therefore, he lodged complaint with O.P. at 3.40 p.m. Earlier on phone he had informed the Bank about this transaction. Even he filed FIR with appropriate Police Station. Complainant pleaded that he had never used password for withdrawing the amount. The complainant requested the Bank that amount of Rs.25,000/- should be re-credited to his account and since this was not done, he alleged deficiency in service on the part of Bank and filed consumer complaint.
O.P./Bank resisted the complaint by filing written statement. It admitted that complainant is using internet banking facility. Said account is accessible to the complainant by using User ID exclusively given to the complainant. User ID and password can be changed by the accountholder himself. Bank pleaded that it is complainants duty to keep all these numbers secret. According to O.P./Bank, complainant had withdrawn said amount on 28/12/2007 by using User ID and password and they were correctly mentioned in the card. The Bank accepted the cardholders request and allowed the withdrawal of Rs.25,000/-. However, it transpired that said amount withdrawn and transferred in the name of Mr.Deshmukh. O.P. pleaded that they had not committed deficiency in service of any kind and complainant was to be blamed himself for the wrongful withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- because he divulged his User ID and password number.
Upon hearing complainant in person and Counsel for the Bank, Forum below held that the complainant being customer was expected to keep User ID and password numbers as top secret. He is the only holder of the account who knows User ID and password numbers. In the instant case, request was made for transfer of amount of Rs.25,000/- by using correct User ID and password number. The Bank was bound to follow this request because this was made on behalf of complainant by using exclusive User ID and password. In the circumstances, Forum below held that complainant has contravened the terms and conditions which are mentioned the card holders account. Forum below therefore found the Bank was not guilty of deficiency in service and was pleased to dismiss the complaint. As such complainant filed this appeal.
On perusal of the impugned judgement and documents placed on record, we are finding that the Forum below rightly passed order of dismissal of complaint. It was fault of the appellant/complainant himself. He has divulged his User ID and password number of his internet account facility to somebody else and said person using these User ID and password numbers operated his account and got transferred Rs.25,000/- from his account to Mr.Deshmukhs account and Bank had not committed any act of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, we are finding that the order passed by the Forum below is just, proper and sustainable in law. There is no substance in the appeal. We therefore pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs.
(S.P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member