IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 1039 of 2023 [Against the order passed in C.C. No.287 of 2018 dated 14.02.2023 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (North)]

Thursday, the 15^th day of May 2025 P. Manjula Reddy W/o. Dr.Srinivasa Reddy No.T.49, 8^th Street Anna Nagar Chennai- 600 040 .. Appellant/

Complainant - Vs –

1. The Manager M/s. ICICI Bank Anna Nagar Branch

3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar Chennai.

2. The Manager M/s.Charana Marketing Shop No.73B, Phase II Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai Chennai- 600 002.

3. The Manager M/s. RCS Associates Shop No.S73-B, Phase-II Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002. .. Respondents 1 to 3/

Opposite parties 1 to 3 Counsel for the Appellant/

Complainant : M/s. A. Vinu Pradha Respondents 1 to 3/Opposite parties 1 to 3 : Served, Called Absent This appeal came up for final hearing on 16.12.2024 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following,

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed as against the order dated

14.02.2023 passed in C.C. No.287 of 2018, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North), dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

2. The brief facts which are necessary to decide this appeal are as follows: The complainant is a practicing Physician (Anesthesian) and is holding a Joint Account along with her husband in the 1^st opposite party’s Bank since 2002, under Account Number 602701202229. The 1^st opposite party had also issued a Debit Card bearing No.4667 0660 2702 1762 to the complainant in the said account, with a validity period of 10 years, from December 2008 to December 2018. On 26.10.2010, the complainant purchased a table clock from the 2^nd opposite party for a cost of Rs.3275/- and made the payment through her debit card. Whileso, the sales person of the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that their EDC machine was not working properly and hence he would swipe the debit card at the shop of the 3^rd opposite party, in the same complex. The charge slip for the debit payment was issued by the 3^rd opposite party towards the purchase made at the shop of the 2^nd opposite party. After the said transaction, the complainant did not use the debit card anywhere till 06.11.2010, on which day, the complainant came to know that her debit card is blocked. When the complainant enquired with the 1^st opposite party, the reason to block her debit card, she found that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- approximately, has been swindled from her account. Hence, the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to provide a Statement, as the 1^st opposite party is not in the usual practice of issuing statements regularly to its customers. On perusal of the Statement, the complainant came to know that from 28.10.2010 to 05.11.2010, someone had illegally used the debit card belonging to the complainant, for more than 27 times at various Merchant Establishments and had thus misappropriated about Rs.1,50,000/-. It is the duty and normal practice of the Banks to communicate each and every transaction to its customers. But, in the case of the complainant none of the said 27 transactions was communicated to her. Further, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of Fixed Deposit in the 1^st opposite party Bank on 27.09.2010, which has been reverted to the said Joint Account without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, enabling the culprits to swindle/wipe off all her money, by using a fake card. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have colluded with each other and had made a skimmer card from the MICR available in the original card. Hence, a criminal complainant was filed before Cyber Crime, Commissioner of Police on 03.12.2010. The said attitude would show the gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of all the opposite parties. The swi