Decided on May 11,2009

ICICI BANK Appellant
P V Rajesh @ Rajesh Panayara Venugopal Respondents


- (1.)THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 5.11.2004 in OP. No. 244/03 of CDRF, Kollam whereby the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000 as compensation with cost of Rs. 1,000. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite party has come in appeal.
(2.)IT is the case of the complainant before the Forum that he was a NRI account holder in the Karunagapally branch of the opposite party during the month of March 2003 and he was given a debit card named ICICIN CASH with ATM facility and visa electron facility. The said card was valid from 3/2003 to 2/2006 and the opposite party made him believe that he can withdraw money by using the ATM card around the globe and believing the words of opposite party the complainant went to Dubai with his wife on 29.5.2003. The complainant alleges that he had transferred an amount of Rs. 50,000 from his NRI account in Indian Bank to the opposite party bank for enabling him to draw money from the said bank while he was in Dubai. It is also his case that after reaching Dubai on different dates he could withdraw money to the tune of Rs. 24,700 using the debit card and he was unable to withdraw money from the ATM using the debit card from 3.6.2003 onwards. Though the opposite party was contacted the complainant was successful in getting money from ATM outlets using the ATM card issued by opposite party. To add insult to injury, he was informed that he had already withdrawn Rs. 70,000 and in spite of the request and clarification made by the complainant the opposite party did not care to do anything and the complainant submitted before the Forum that he had to suffer loss of honour before the total strangers in a foreign country. Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed for directions to the opposite party to pay Rs. 5 lakh as compensation with 12% interest and cost of Rs. 3,000.
(3.)RESISTING the complaint the opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint was not maintainable Land that the allegations are false and vexatious. It was also contended that the complainant was silent about the non -functioning of the opposite party at Dubai at the time when he tried to take money and that the complainant did not obey the terms and conditions which are amended by the opposite party bank from time -to -time. It was also submitted that the complainant was provided with maximum services within reach and limits of the bank. Pleading that there was no deficiency of service the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The evidence adduced consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW 1 and Exs. P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the opposite party DW 1 was examined and Ext. D1 was marked.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.