
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench, with Nagender Singh Kadian (President) and Tripti Pannu (Member), held ICICI Bank accountable for deficient services. This stemmed from a lapse in providing adequate security, leading to unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs. 4.89 Lacs. The commission directed the bank to rectify the transactions, reimburse Rs. 10,000/- for litigation, and compensate for service deficiency.
Complainant’s Account Activation and Subsequent Issues
Mrs. Shakuntala Devi, an ICICI Bank account holder, visited the bank to activate her ATM. Lack of a TP Number led to assurance from the staff for subsequent contact. After providing the TP number upon the bank’s request, the complainant deposited Rs. 3,73,283/- as an FDR. Unauthorized withdrawals, including a premature FDR transfer, prompted the complainant to file a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission due to unsatisfactory responses from the bank.
Bank’s Response and Allegations
The bank acknowledged the complainant’s ATM holder status but denied her visit and OTP request, labeling it as fabrication. The bank asserted that the complaint aimed at recovering negligence-related losses and accused the complainant of willingly sharing details leading to fraudulent withdrawal. The bank explained the FDR transfer as a legitimate procedure, reversed after internal investigation exposed the complainant’s negligence.
Security Lapse and Unauthorized Transactions
The District Commission noted the bank’s prompt action in blocking the card but raised concerns about subsequent IVR activation without customer verification. This lapse in security measures led to unauthorized transactions, resulting in a deficiency in services.
Commission’s Ruling and Remedies
The District Commission held the bank accountable for deficient services, directing the refund of Rs. 4,89,000/- with 9% interest from the deduction date. Additionally, the bank was instructed to pay Rs. 5,000/- each as compensation for service deficiency and litigation costs to the complainant.