BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 350 OF 2023 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.369/2022 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD Between:

Shri Samir Patel, S/o Naren Patel, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Business, R/o Plot No.41, Surya Enclave, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad-15.

…….Appellant/Complainant And:

1. M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., Represented by it’s Managing Director and CEO, Having it’s office at Landmark, Racecourse Circle, Vadodara-390007, Having it’s Corporate Office at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051.

2. M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., Diamond Point Branch, Sikh Village, Secunderabad-500 009.

……..Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : Sri Karoor Mohan Counsel for the Respondents /Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 :

M/s S.Nagesh Reddy QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

TUESDAY, THE 24th D AY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by the complainant, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-III, Hyderabad, dated 19.04.2023 in CC 369/2022, having not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and costs given; that to allow the claim as made in the complaint.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is a credit card holder of the opposite parties Bank, since 2013, bearing No.4375511713165004. On 16.01.2022 he received a message to his cell phone intimating that 05 transactions were done on his credit card; that the alleged transactions were done in Bareilly, when he was at Hyderabad during that time and when credit card was with him; that he had blocked his credit card through the opposite parties bank and lodged a complaint with Cyber Crime P.S., CCS, Hyderabad on 17.01.2022, vide FIR in Crime No.85/2022 and the same is pending, as the opposite parties have not furnished the required documents to the police. It is further submitted that whenever, the credit card transactions are done, he receives the OTP, but it was not happened to the said 05 alleged transactions; that when the complainant asked the status of the credit card transactions, the opposite parties sought 15 days time and later on 18.04.2022 issued a letter stating that the dispute is resolved in favour of the merchant.

3. The complainant further stated that the opposite parties has issued a bill for Rs.1,91,000/-; that the complainant had objected for the same. Opposite parties submitted the report stating that the complainant had linked the credit card to payment gateway, Samgsung Pay and he was sent with an OTP on 16.01.2022 for providing credit card for Samsung Pay; that the same was refused by the complainant. The merchant himself informed the complainant over phone that the transactions were done by a person physically and he can provide the CCTV footage of the same; that the same was intimated to the opposite parties and to the police. As there was no response from the opposite parties, the complainant got issued a legal notice, dated 16.05.2022, calling upon them to waive the claim of Rs.1,91,000/-, which was fraudulently done. Due to the acts and deeds of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered a lot; hence, the complaint.

4. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Parties are that they deny all the allegations made in the complaint, except of those which are specifically admitted. It is admitted that the complainant is the credit card holder of their bank and using the card for his requirements; that as soon as the five credit card transactions were done, the complainant received the alert message and then he has intimated them to block the credit card and the same was done by the opposite parties; that the complainant has lodged a complaint with Cyber Crime, vide FIR No.85/2022; that the opposite parties were co-operating and assisting the police w