Ahmedabad: A Consumer Court has ordered ICICI Bank Ltd to restore account holders because Rs 4.8 lakh was withdrawn from his account after he issued a recipient check for RS 135.
The bank claimed the fraud was carried out by a third party and it was not responsible for paying it.
This case involves the Whahibaug-Resident, Uday Pandya, who wants to go to Canada and issue a checkpaid check for Rs 135 on behalf of Canada VFS in April 2008.
Pandya has a 5.08 lakh RS in his savings account with Bank ICICI.
He then learned that Rs 4.8 lakh was withdrawn from his account.
In the investigation, the bank showed him a carrier of Rs 4,8lakh issued by him to be paid to ‘self’.
Pandya denied the honesty check and claimed that he had not issued a carrier examination.
He filed a complaint of the police, but the case was closed.
However, the FSL report revealed that the check was rewritten.
Pandya stressed a refund that said that the bank paid money on the power of checks whose authenticity was not verified by bank officials.
Pandya sued the bank by unsuccessful with a consumer consumer dispute Ahmedabad, redressal forum (rural).
It took him to the Gujarat state consumer crowded leader commission, where his lawyer argued that in the case of the value of checking more than Rs 50,000, the examination must be examined under the ultraviolet light engine before cleaning it for payment.
Bank officials do not take other precautions in the rules.
He accused negligence on the bank section in cleaning checks.
The bank defended himself by saying the fraud was carried out by a third party and it was not responsible.
It also argues that the complainant cannot be contacted for verification, and the SMS warning is sent.
Judicial members of the Commission, M J J Mehta, disagree with the bank’s argument and survive that it is a bank duty to verify inspection in accordance with the regulations and regulations set by the Reserve Bank of India.
The bank does not follow the rules adopted by itself.
Less their duties and less in service.
It is said that consumer protection laws are ultimate drugs in this case.