NCRDC asks ICICI to refund Rs 2 lakh fraudulently withdrawn from man's a/c

New Delhi: The apex consumer commission has asked the ICICI bank to refund over Rs 2 lakh to a customer who lost the amount through an ATM fraud in 2006-07.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has asked the bank to also pay a compensation of Rs 2,000 to Haryana resident Karam Singh who lost Rs 2,07,368 during November 11, 2006 and February 2, 2007.

Singh had alleged that during the three months period, he failed to receive any transaction message from the bank.

The NCDRC has upheld the decision of lower foras asking the bank to pay a compensation of Rs 2,000 to Singh.

"The State Commission as well as the District Forum have based their conclusion on the issue of deactivation of the service of sending messages to the complainants for each transaction. It is clear from record that the SMS alert service had been provided by the Bank to the complainant. It is not understood, however, why the said service was not operational during the period in question, i.e., from 21.11.2006 to 25.02.2007," the NCDRC presiding member B C Gupta said.

According to the complaint, the last transaction made by Singh was on November 20, 2006 and at that time, the balance amount left in the account was Rs 2,07,627.

It further said that on February 26, 2007, when he wanted to withdraw some amount from the account, the ATM machine showed the balance amount as Rs 203 only.

It is alleged that the amount was fraudulently drawn from his account by somebody during the period November 21, 2006 to February 25, 2007, but he did not receive any message on his cell-phone during the said period.

Singh also said that even the message regarding the maintenance of minimum amount of Rs 5,000 in the Bank account was not received.

The bank, however, said that the debit card as well as the PIN was in possession of the complainant so no amount could have been withdrawn.

The bank also said there was no deficiency on part of the bank and in case some fraudulent withdrawal of any amount had taken place, the complainant was responsible for the same.

The lower foras rejected the bank's contention and asked it to refund the amount with compensation.