Kaithal Consumer Commission Holds ICICI Bank Liable For Arbitrarily Imposing Lien On Customer's Savings Account Without Due Process
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaithal, comprising Smt. Neelam Kashyap (President), Smt. Harisha Mehta (Member) and Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha (Member), has held ICICI Bank liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for arbitrarily imposing a lien on the complainant's savings account without following due procedure and without producing any material to substantiate the alleged fraud dispute on the basis of which the lien was imposed.
Facts
The complainant, Shaily Sikka, maintained a savings account with ICICI Bank. On 12 December 2025, when she attempted to make a transaction for medical expenses, the transaction failed. Upon checking her account, she discovered that a lien had been imposed on her account, reducing the available balance from ₹14,14,006.82 to ₹2,75,993.18
She approached the bank's branch office on 15 December 2025 seeking clarification and removal of the lien. According to her, bank officials informed her that the account had been marked under lien on account of an alleged fraud dispute and that only the bank's backend team could remove it.
Despite visiting the branch and sending an email to the bank seeking reasons for the lien and asking whether any FIR or police complaint had been lodged, no satisfactory response was provided. Consequently, she approached the Kaithal District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency in service and seeking compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused by the bank's actions.
Contentions of the Opposite Parties
ICICI Bank contended that the lien was imposed as a precautionary measure in accordance with its internal procedures and guidelines. The bank submitted that on 23 November 2025, an amount of 34,90,000 had been transferred to the complainant's account through NEFT by one Shilpa Vij, stated to be the complainant's sister.
According to the bank, the remitter subsequently disputed the transaction through customer care, following which the bank marked a lien on the disputed amount pending verification. It further contended that attempts were made to contact the remitter and that the lien was necessary to safeguard the disputed funds.
Observation & Decision
The Commission found that the bank had failed to substantiate its defence with any documentary evidence. Although it claimed that the remitter had disputed the transaction through customer care, no complaint record, communication, call detail, or other material was produced to support the assertion. Similarly, the bank failed to establish that it had contacted the remitter or undertaken any verification exercise as claimed.
The Commission further observed that despite relying on internal guidelines to justify the lien, the bank failed to place those guidelines on record. It also failed to produce any FIR, police complaint, cybercrime complaint, or investigation report relating to the disputed transaction. Rejecting the bank's reliance on an alleged internal investigation, the Commission observed that a bank cannot assume the role of a statutory investigating agency and must support such claims with evidence.
Referring to RBI circulars placed on record, the Commission observed that the bank had failed to produce any material showing compliance with the applicable regulatory framework. The Commission also found merit in the complainant's contention that she had not been properly informed about the reasons for the lien and noted that the bank failed to establish that any communication explaining the action had been sent to her.
Relying on precedents concerning arbitrary freezing of bank accounts, the Commission held that the bank had imposed the lien without following due procedure and without any supporting complaint or investigation. It concluded that the bank's conduct amounted to deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice, causing financial loss, inconvenience, and mental agony to the complainant.
Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to immediately lift the lien imposed on the complainant's savings account. The Commission further awarded ₹15,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses. The amount was directed to be paid within 45 days, failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the order until realization.
Case Title: Shaily Sikka v. ICICI Bank & Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 03 of 2026