ATM card delivery fraud: ICICI Bank fined
- India, Ireland share much in common, says Modi before leaving for US
- Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn resigns amid emissions-rigging scandal
- Hardik Patel surfaces after mysterious disappearance, says he was abducted
- 2006 Mumbai train blasts: Prosecution seeks death penalty for 8 convicts
- Backward class candidates get lion's share in Nitish Kumar's list
ICICI bank has been directed by a consumer forum to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation to one of its consumers whose ATM card was delivered to a wrong hand, who withdrew money from the account fraudulently.
The ATM card landed at a wrong address and was used for withdrawing over Rs 48,000 from the savings account of a person, who was waiting for the same to be delivered at his address.
A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central) gave its ruling in the favour of account holder Datta Ram, saying that the act of the private bank caused "mental agony and harassment" to him for its failure to return the money to his account in spite of information that it was not withdrawn by him using the ATM card.
The consumer forum also held that non-delivery of ATM card and withdrawal of money from the account of the customer by somebody else amounts to "deficiency of service" by the bank.
"The demand of Rs 48,900 from the complainant and then the act of the bank to withdraw that amount from his saving account amounts to deficiency in service," B B Chaudhary, President of the Central Delhi consumer forum, said in the order.
"On account of the act of the bank, the complainant had to send legal notice and suffered harassment, pain and mental agony," the panel said while also awarding him Rs 5,000 towards litigation charges.
The complainant had said that on November 15, 2008 he received SMS alert that Rs 48,900 was withdrawn from his savings account through his ATM card and he had immediately informed the bank that he never received the card and thus he could not have done the transaction.
The bank denied that it caused any deficiency in service and contended that the ATM card and PIN were duly delivered to the complainant and that only he or someone to whom he allowed access to the ATM card withdrew the money and the bank cannot be held liable.