J.P.SHARMA Vs. ICICI BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, Dehradun where he filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant after obtaining a ˜Visa Global Card from the Respondent Bank travelled to Colombo wherein he wanted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,800 or so. The Card was accepted in the ATM of HSBC Bank, but it did not deliver the money to the complainant. When the complainant came to Dehradun, his account details showed that amount of money had been withdrawn by the complainant. When the Respondent -Bank took up the matter with the HSBC Bank, it was found that it was on account of an incorrect advice sent by HSBC Bank to the Respondent Bank that the amount was shown to have been withdrawn by the petitioner. Based on this information, the amount so debited from the account of the petitioner/complainant, was re -credited in April, 2003. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum for alleging deficiency in service who after hearing the parties awarded Rs. 8,000 as compensation to the complainant as also cost of Rs. 12,000. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission who modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that instead of lump sum compensation of Rs. 8,000, it was substituted by grant of interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount debited, from the date of debit entry upto month of April, 2003 when the amount was re -credited, along with cost of Rs. 10,000. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the State Commission, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us.

(3.) There is no dispute that it was on account of incorrect advice given by the HSBC Bank to the Respondent Bank that this amount of Rs. 1,800 or so was debited from the account of the complainant, which was somewhere in the month of January, 2003 and as soon as error was detected by the petitioner, the money was re -credited within a period of almost 2 months in the account of petitioner complainant. But what remains undisputed is that the petitioner was deprived of the use of the money for that period of almost 2 months, and in our view the interest awarded, which is higher than the interest he would have earned on Fixed Deposit should be an adequate compensation for indirect ˜deficiency -in -service on the part of the respondent. Primarily, it was HSBC Bank who sent the wrong advice. But as the petitioner has been compensated for non use of the money for 2 months period, for which, in our view, the award of interest is an adequate compensation along with cost of Rs. 2,000 (sic).