IMPORTANT POINT
Bank cannot be held liable for supplying or denying CCTV footage to Complainant.

Vinay Kumar, Presiding Member—Revision Petitioner, Sandeep Sharda had filed a consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Chandigarh alleging wrong debit of Rs.29000/- to his credit card account. Allegedly, on 13.12.2011 he had delivered his card to an executive of the respondent, ICICI Bank, at Chandigarh, for enhancement of the credit limit, as it required issue of a new card. On 15.12.2011 his old card was used at Croma Store at New Delhi for the above amount. As soon as he got an SMS alert reporting this transaction, he got the card blocked through ICICI Helpline. On 16.11.2011 he wrote to the respondent and the Senior Superintendent of the Police, Chandigarh. Respondent/OP first wrote on 27.12.2011 that they had reversed the entry but later issued a legal notice on 19.3.2013 for payment of the amount.

2. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed respondent/OP to withdraw the debit of Rs 29,000/- from the credit card account and pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost. On appeal by OP/ICICI Bank, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, holding that it was perverse as not based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record.

3. Respondent/OP was ex parte before the District Forum. Therefore, District Forum has noted that—

“6. Whereas, the OP instead of filing reply and evidence, had filed only written arguments mainly alleging that the said incident had occurred on account of the negligence and carelessness of the complainant himself, who failed to take adequate steps to protect his credit card. It is also alleged that no person was deputed by the OP to collect credit card from the complainant.

7. In our opinion, though, the OP has filed the written arguments, but the same cannot take the place of written reply and evidence on its part. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant remain unrebutted & uncontroverted by the OP by leading sufficient documentary evidence as well as the reply, after getting the exparte order, dated 24.09.2013, passed against it. Thus, the act & conduct of the OP draws an adverse inference against it, which shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant duly supported by evidence in the shape of affidavit. Hence, the assertions of the complainant, which have gone unrebutted & uncontroverted, are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service on the part of OP is proved.”

4. From the above it is evident that the district Forum had chosen to decide the consumer dispute on the evidence of one side only i.e. the complainant. Before the State Commission, the appellant/Bank was represented and was heard. While allowing the appeal, the State Commission has observed that—

“12. Admittedly, the Credit Card, bearing no.4629 8642 3733 1006, was issued by the Opposite Party, in favour of the complainant. The grievance of the complainant was, to the effect, that he did not withdraw the amount of Rs.29,000/- through this Credit Card, from his account, but the agent of the Opposite Party bank, to whom he handed over the same (Credit Card), on the promise of enhancing his credit limit, misused the same. It may be stated here, that in paragraph number 5 of the complaint, the complainant, in clear-cut terms, stated that the said agent requested him, to cut the Credit Card, into pieces and handover the same to him, as he had to deposit the same, in the Opposite Party bank, whereupon a new Credit Card would be issued, in a week’s time. It was further stated, in paragraph number 5 of the complaint, that accordingly the complainant gave the Credit Card to the said agent. From paragraph number 5 of the complaint, it is, thus, evident that the complainant, gave the Credit Card, by tearing the same, into pieces, to the alleged agent. In case, the complainant gave the Credit Card, by cutting the same into pieces, as is evident, from paragraph number 5 of the complaint, to the alleged agent of the ba