ICICI BANK LTD Vs. JAI SINGH RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant -ICICI Bank (opposite party in the original complaint) against the order dated 16.8.2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Jodhpur in case No. 74/2006 by which the complaint filed by the complainant -respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed in the manner that the appellant was directed to pay to the complainant -respondent a sum of Rs. 5,800, which were deposited by him, Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,500 as cost of litigation within 15 days from the date of order, failing which the complainant respondent would be entitled to get interest on the above amount at the rate of 9% p. a. from the date of order till payment was made.

(2.) IT . may be stated here that the complainant -respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant -ICICI Bank before the District Forum, Jodhpur on 6.1.2006 stating inter alia that he was having salary account bearing No. 016701006992 with the appellant Bank and to operate that account, he was also given ATM card bearing No. 6368 by the appellant -Bank. It was further stated in the complaint that in the month of December 2005, the complainant -respondent had requested the appellant -Bank to issue debit card and in pursuance of that, the appellant -Bank had sent code number through letter Annex. 3, hut debit card was not sent by the appellant -Bank to the complaint -respondent. It was further stated in the complaint that Rs. 5,800 were debited by the appellant Bank on the pretext that that amount was drawn by the complainant respondent through card, but the case of the complainant -respondent was that that amount was not drawn by him and for that deficiency, the present complaint was filed.

(3.) A reply was filed by the appellant -Bank and the allegations made in the complaint were denied and it was further replied that an enquiry was being made in the matter. It was further replied that oven debit card was sent to the complainant -respondent through courier services and, therefore, the case of the complainant -respondent that the amount in question was wrongly drawn by someone could not be found established. Hence, no case, complaint bo dismissed.