1. This case can be very well looked into by the Consumer Forum. Since you are aggrieved with the deficient services rendered to you by the Bank and as a result, you have also incurred losses, you have rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.

2. Not really, because this would give an imputation that even Airtel Money is involved in this.

3. Deny this and try to shift the burden fr the loses incurred by you on the Bank. Also, demonstrate before the Court that Bank was hostile towards you and didn't deal the whole matter in the right spirit.

In complaint before consumer forum make both Airtel and Icici Bank parties

2)I Icici Bank is liable as money was fraudulently withdrawn from your account

3) you did not seek generation of PIN by bank

4) file complaint before consumer forum at the earliest

1) You have to register party to ICICI Bank, Third-party member on whose account money is transferred and Airtel Bank. Ask them to provide details of this transaction under cyber crime.

One can file an application before the Adjudicating Officer appointed under Section 46 of Information Technology Act, 2000 claiming breach of reasonable security procedures by the bank. An analysis of selected cases ordered by the Adjudicating Officer in the state of Maharashtra revealed that the banks and telecom operators in most cases have failed to maintain reasonable security procedures, including non-compliance of KYC norms, Anti-money laundering guidelines, and automatic suspicious transaction monitoring facilities. As per Section 43A of Information Technology Act, 2000 the banks and other intermediaries who have failed to maintain reasonable security procedure must pay adequate damages as compensation to such person to cover the loss.

The Adjudicating Officer has the power to adjudicate in the matters where the claim does not exceed Rs 5 crores. The bank must prove that they have maintained reasonable security procedures to prevent such fraudulent acts. In case the bank fails to prove that they have maintained reasonable security procedure, the Adjudicating Officer who has the powers of a Civil Court, may order the bank to pay damages as compensation to the victim.

How can make complaints to Adjudicating Officer at your city.

Hi, there defence is invalid .. Since the money was transferred without your consent from your bank , they are liable for granting you compensation being a consumer..you can also plead Airtel as a party to the complaint

Let them dispute the maintainability of your case. Its quite normal for them to dispute the validity of the case.

If the bank has wrongly debited money from your account then you have a good case against thrm.

However i would suggest you to add Airtel money in this case also as without their presence forum may refuse to pass final order.

Dear Sir,

Before the Consumer Forum you must make both of them as respondents and Court will decide the negligence percentage committed by them and accordingly it will ask them to pay the compensation in the ratios of negligence. For example if there is 40% negligence on the part of Bank it shall be asked to pay 40% compensation and Airtel will be asked to pay remaining 60% compensation.

For more details and for effective legal advise, please call me immediately, through Kaanoon Website.

Hello,

They mentioned some cjp ( don't know what it is). How should I respond ?

CJP is Consumer Protection Judgments, it must be a judgment, share the name of the judgment so that we may tell you a case which is in your favor.

No you can not state this,

You may take this as an objection.

Kindly share the copy of your complaint and reply with some advocate, so that concrete advise can be rendered. Do not file a reply without consulting an advocate.

Regards

1. Yes you can file an application for impleadment of the party.

2. There is no need for you to withdraw the case.

3. What is the name of the case, they must have quoted such cases wherein the contractual agreement and right of the consumer have been defined.

4. We will have to see the copy of the complaint and the reply in order to tell you any case in your favor.

Regards

You have to make an application fir amendment of complaint to add Airtel as party

2) court would allow amendment

3) no need to withdraw the case

4) better you engage a local lawyer

1. Only in case the Court is insisting you to do so. No need to do this voluntarily. You keep maintaining your stand that only the ICICI Bank is resposnible for your fate.

2. No, but at the time of withdrawing this, you'll have to take liberty to file a fresh case in the same cause of action. I will not advise you to withdraw this.

3. I will let you know.

4. I will have to go through your file to help you with supporting case laws.

(1993) lll CJP 1993: This citation is wrong.

(2000) ll CJP 120----------------------------------------->

II(2000 )CPJ 120 (SS )

MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BHOPAL

Appeal No. 702 of 1995

Decided On: 30.08.1999

Appellants: Asad Ullah Khan

Vs.

Respondent: M.C. Motors and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.K. Dubey, J. (President) and Saroj Rajwade, Member

Counsels:

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sunita Jadhwani for Deepesh Joshi, Advocate

For Respondents/Defendant: Rekha Tiwari for Ravindra Tiwari, Advocate

Subject: Consumer

Catch Words

Mentioned IN

ORDER

S.K. Dubey, J. (President)

1. This is a complainant's appeal against the order dated 28.8.1995 passed in Case No. 90/93 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna (for short the 'District Forum'). It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a Canter Truck bearing No. MP 19-3529 financed by the respondent No. 2 under hire purchase agreement. In terms of the said agreement the amount of Rs. 2,40,300/- so advanced was to be paid in 24 monthly instalments. The said truck met with an accident on 19.7.1990 which was sent by the respondent No. 2 Financier to the workshop of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 Insurance Company assessed the damage of Rs. 99,228/- which was paid to the repairer. After its repair the possession of the truck was not delivered to the appellant-complainant, therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service filed the complainant against the repairer, financier and the insurer. The respondent No. 1 averred that actual charges of repairs were Rs. 1,43,674.28 paise and on payment of the balance amount of Rs. 44,446.28 paise by the financier who sent the truck for repairs the delivery was made to the respondent No. 2. The complainant after making the payment of first instalment of Rs. 12,015/- did not make any payment from 2nd instalment of Rs. 12,015/- to 12th instalment of the same amount and from 13th monthly instalment of Rs. 8,010/-. Therefore, in terms of the hire purchase agreement in default of payment of monthly instalments and in not making the payment of balance amount of repair charges, the agreement was terminated and possession of the truck was retained it is a dispute between the hire purchaser and the financier which cannot be adjudicated in the summary jurisdiction of the Consumer FORA. The respondent No. 3 averr that in terms of insurance policy and IMT 55 as the vehicle was subject to hypothetical agreement, the amount assessed by the Surveyor of the damage was paid to the repairer. There was no deficiency in service the District Forum after appreciation of evidence did not find any deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties, hence dismissed the complaint.

2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the record we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. In fact, it is a dispute between the hire purchaser and the financier in view of their contractual relationship in terms of the hire purchase agreement. Therefore, unless it is established that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the financier in terms of the agreement. The dispute could not be decided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Remedy if any, available to the complainant is to file a civil suit for the declaration and for possession of the truck. The appellant if so advised may take appropriate proceedings in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. See the decision of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case of Pravinchandra Hargovindas Joshi v. DCM Toyota Ltd. & Ors., I (1997) CPJ 129. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum alongwith the record of the case.

Asad Ullah Khan vs. M.C. Motors and Ors. (30.08.1999 - SCDRC Madhya Pradesh)

(1997) l CJP 129-------------------------------------------------------->

I(1997 )CPJ 129 (Guj. )

GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD

Complaint No. 171 of 1993

Decided On: 17.06.1996

Appellants: Pravinchandra Hargovindas Joshi

Vs.

Respondent: DCM Toyota Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Mankad, J. (President) and Jatin P. Vaidya, Member

Counsels:

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.P. Kansara, Advocate

For Respondents/Defendant: N.M. Kapadia, Advocate

Subject: Consumer

Catch Words

Mentioned IN

ORDER

R.C. Mankad, J. (President)

1. The complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 1,28,663/- and compensation from the opponents on the following allegations. The complainant had, according to him, purchased DCM Toyota bearing Registration No. GJ-5-T-3114 (vehicle for short) under hire purchase scheme from Opponent No. 1 on April 22, 1991. The vehicle was purchased through Opponent No. 1 is manufacturer of the vehicle. Opponent No. 4 is its agent at Surat. Opponent No. 2 is alleged to be financier of Opponent No. 1, Opponent No. 1 had taken the vehicle on lease from Opponent No. 2. Opponent No. 3 is the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured under Policy No. 40127/91 dated April 22, 1991.

2. The case of the complainant is that he had paid margin money and loan instalments totalling to Rs. 1,05,806/-to Opponent No. 1. He had paid Rs. 12,857/- to Opponent No. 4 towards insurance transportation, registration of vehicle etc. Complainant had also spent about Rs. 10,000/- for making addition and alteration in the vehicle.

3. It would thus appear from the facts stated above that the complainant was holding the vehicle as sub-lessee under a Hire Purchase agreement entered into with Opponent No. 1. The vehicle met with an accident on September 1, 1991 and 4 persons including the complainant's son died in the accident. The possession of the damaged vehicle was taken over by Opponent No. 4 on behalf of the Opponent No. 1. It is the case of the complainant that Opponent No. 1 must have received the sum assured viz., Rs. 2,93,000/- from the Insurance Company. According to the complainant, he is entitled to receive Rs. 1,28,663 /- from the Opponents. Opponents, however, failed to pay this amount inspite of letters written to Opponent No. 1 by himself and Surat Consumer Association. On the above grounds, the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 1,28,663/-, compensation and costs.

4. The Opponents have filed written statements resisting the claim made by the complainant. Their main contention is that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the definition of "consumer" given under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act and in any case, there being no deficiency of service on their part, he is not entitled to claim any compensation from them. It is further contended that the complainant is merely a sub-lessee and he has no right to file the complaint. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Commission in Kachhia Patel Rajendra v. DCM Toyota Limited and Ors; (Complaint No. 348/91 decided on October 15, 1993).

5. At the time of hearing of this complaint, the learned Advocate for the complainant submitted that he was pressing this complaint only against Opponent No. 1 and that too only to the extent of the money which is paid to it by Opponent No. 3 Insurance Company. Since the complaint is not pressed against Opponents No. 2,3 and 4, it shall stand dismissed against them. So far as Opponent No. 1 is concerned it is submitted on behalf of the complainant that Opponent No. 3 has paid some amount to it and since the complainant is entitled to this amount. Opponent No. 1 should be directed to pay that amount to hi m. There is absolutely no evidence on record as to whether Opponent No. 3 has paid any amount of Opponent No. 1. In fact, it appears from letter dated October 14, 1993 which is addressed by Opponent No. 3 to Opponent No. 1 and which is at page 33 that Opponent No. 3 had repudiated the claim on the ground that unauthorised passengers were carried in the vehicle. It is stated to the effect that the vehicle was a commercial vehicle meant for carrying or transporting goods only and since passengers were carried there was violation of terms and conditions of the RTO permit and the insurance policy. There is no other evidence to prove that Opponent No. 3 had paid any money to Opponent No. 1. But apart from that we fail to understand as to how any claim can be made against Opponent No. 1 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. There is a contractual relation between the Complainant and Opponent No. 1. There is a Hire Purchase agreement under which Opponent No. 1 has subleased the vehicle to the Complainant. It is not stated as to what services Opponent No. 1 was required to render to the Complainant and what deficiency was therein rendering such services on the part of Opponent No. 1. The insurance policy which is issued by the Insurance Company also stands in the name of Opponent No. 1. Opponent No. 1 had taken vehicle on lease from Opponent No. 2 and therefore it could not be said that it had no insurable interest in the vehicle. Therefore, even if it has received any sum from the Insurance Company for the damage to the vehicle it could utilise this amount for discharge of its liability to Opponent No. 2. It is true that the complainant has paid certain amount to Opponents No. 1 and 4. But for that reason alone, it could not be said that whatever amount is received by Opponent No. 1 from Opponent No. 3 is payable to the complainant. The questions which are involved in this complaint are such which could not be decided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Remedy, if any, available to the complainant is to file a civil suit. In our opinion, therefore, this complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Pravinchandra Hargovindas Joshi vs. DCM Toyota Limited and Ors. (17.06.1996 - SCDRC Gujarat)

Dear Sir,

My answers as follows:

1.At this stage can I add Airtel as the 2nd op for the same case? If yes what is the procedure? If no then what is the process ? This is very important for me as I have already invested a lot of time for this case.

Ans: Yes, you may file an application under order 1 rule 10 of CPC with your affidavit.

2.in case I withdraw to file new case for adding Airtel as 2nd Op can court impose fine on me? If yes how to avoid ?

Ans: Not necessary. If you wish to withdraw you must take permission of the Court to file fresh one stating that you are withdrawing this because of technical defects.

3. for the contractual agreement between me and ICICI they mentioned(1993) lll CJP 1993, (2000) ll CJP 120, (1997) l CJP 129. What cases are they referring to ?

Ans: Fact finding court and no need of citations, only after their defense we can search for appropriate citations.

For any doubts or personal assistance in drafting you may kindly visit my office.

Hi Abhishek, please check below points and citation court order passed crore of rupees to pay bank, so don't worry you will also get your money back.

1) Yes, you can add Airtel as party non-joinder, as per CPC chapter II Rule 9 Order 1

"According to the proviso of the Rule 9 of Order 1 nothing in the said rule applies to non-joinder of a necessary party. A necessary party is that in whose absence the court cannot pass an effective decree. If the decree cannot be effective without the absent party, the suit is liable to be dismissed."

2) See above answer 1.

3) See for what purpose CJP works, there is no disturbance between bank and customer relation both are different, ask them for each rules full definition which they have mentioned in the agreement.

"CJP is a Human Rights platform dedicated to upholding and defending the freedom and constitutional rights of all Indians. Minorities of all kinds, religious, ethnic, caste and gender-based, remain a deep concern for CJP. We remain committed to the belief that a democracy’s health and vibrancy depends upon its ability to respect free expression, dignify all kinds of belief systems, cultures and languages. CJP works tirelessly to demand justice for all, in the courts and beyond."

4) See the below citation cases report how terrible bank and telephone company are held liable.

Under the IT Act, state IT secretary is the adjudicating officer, to adjudicate matters in respect of contraventions, like online frauds and order compensation of up to Rs1 crore to the complainant

Maharashtra's principal secretary for Information Technology (IT) department, Rakesh Aggarwal, in a recent case, directed six banks, one mobile operator and a card company to pay Rs1.06 crore compensation to victims of online frauds who have been duped over past two years.

According to a report in The Times of India, the order for compensation was issued by the state government's equivalent of a Cyber Crime Court, which is presided over by the principal secretary in charge of information technology. "The principle secretary, Rakesh Aggarwal, functions as adjudication officer under Section 45 of the IT Act 2000. The banks that have been ordered to pay compensation include Central Bank of India, Royal Bank of Scotland, Punjab National Bank, IndusInd Bank, Yes Bank, State Bank of India. Other institutions who have been directed to pay are Vodafone and SBI Cards," the report says.

Customers duped in online frauds often find that there is no easy remedy available. This is despite, the Banking Codes and Standards Board of India (BCSBI) making it clear that in electronic fraud, the onus of proving that the customer participated in the fraud or compromised the user ID and password will shift to the bank.

Even the Damodaran Committee on Customer Services in Bank, in 2011, had recommended the same changes. Dr KC Chakrabarty, the then deputy governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI), too had emphatically said that banks cannot push the burden of proof on the customer and, if they could not find suitable insurance cover to mitigate their risk, they may want to reconsider offering Internet banking at all.

With the historic ruling of the Cyber Crime Court, it now becomes important for everyone who is duped in online fraud to know about the Court and its jurisdiction.

Let me know if you require any help, please call me via consultation call I will guide you further.

1. The ICICI Bank cannot give such a vague and irrelevant reply to the consumer forum.

You are a customer to the bank and not a relative to the bank hence the consumer complaint is very much maintainable.

2. You can implead the Airtel company also as a party to this dispute.

3. This you can plead in your pleadings or allow them to challenge the same before court.

1. You can implead the air tel company as a party by filing an application under order 1 Rule 10.

2. No. you can file a petition before the consumer court praying to implead that party also in the case.

3. You can ask them directly

Hi,

You may add airtel money as a party under provisions given in CPC and the for ICICI bank, you are a consumer. No need to withdraw the case. Amend it and proceed again.