K. Chidambaram,

2-A, Dev Apartments,

Taramani Main Road,

Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042. …. Complainant
Vs

1. The Manager,

ICICI BAnk Ltd.,

Credit CArd Division,

46, Gandhi Mandapaam Road,

Kotturpuram, Chennai – 600 029.



2, The Chief Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Customer Care,

P.O. Box No.20,

Banjara Hill P.O.

Hyderabad.



3. The Managing Director,

ICICI Bank Ltec.,

ICICI Towers,

Bandara Kurla Complex,

Mumbai – 400 051.



4. Arun Panicker,

Manager,

Credit Card Collections,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Shafeer Complex,

Opp.to YMCA, Kannur Road,

Calicut-1. ….. Opposite Parties



Date of complaint : 23.12.2004

For Complainant : M/s. I. Arokiasamy, S. Sabari Perumal &

S. Anthonysamy, Counsel.

For Opposite Parties : M/s. Anand, Abdul & Vibnodh Associates,

Counsel.

ORDER

THIRU.P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.25,000/- as cost of the complaint.

1. The fact of the case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

The complainant had availed credit card from the opposite parties and paid membership fee of Rs.1500/- during 2002. The credit limit was permitted at Rs.67,000/- . The 3rd opposite party enhanced the credit limit to Rs.83,750/- during 2004, and a new card was issued by replacing the old card. At the time of issuing credit card, the interest rate was at 2.75% per annum. But the statement issued by the bank revealed that late payment charges, interest charges, EMI interest extra, which are exorbitant,. The opposite parties had also revised the rate of interest to 2.9% per annum. Though the complainant was regular in payment in credit card dues, the 2nd opposite party had not sent annually or quarterly statement of accounts. Therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Further, the 4th opposite party had informed the employer of the complainant for the payment of arrears due by the complainant, which affects his name and honour and reputation of the complainant in the bank, where he is employed. Hence, the complaint.

2. The opposite parties filed version and contented inter alia that it is true that the complainant had availed credit card facilities from the opposite parties in the year 2002 with the credit limit of Rs.67,000/-. The credit card facilities were given to the complainant only after the complainant accepted the terms and conditions. The complainant is irregular in payment of dues. As on date a sum of Rs.1,00,2419.81 is due in the account of the complainant to be paid to the opposite parties. The statement of account, as reported by the complainant was furnished to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service.

3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the complainant. Ex.B1 series were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opposite parties?.

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No.1: It is not in a dispute that the complainant had availed credit card facilities with the opposite parties bank during the year 2002, with credit limit of Rs.67,000/-. Exs. A1 to A3 are the credit card statements issued by the opposite parties dated 2.10.2003, 12.11.2003 and 12.12.2003. The complainant was issued new credit card raising the credit limit to Rs.83,750/-. Ex A4 is the letter by the opposite parties to the complainant to that effect. Exs. A5 to A8 are the credit card statements till 12.5.2004. Ex A9 is the copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Exs. A10 and A11 are the credit card statements issued by the opposite parties dated 12.06.2004. The opposite parties filed Ex B1 statement of Account till 12.03.2006. The contention of the complainant that the opposite parties have not furnished the annual or quarterly statement of accounts in spite of several requests is unacceptable. On perusal of Exs A1 to A11, complaint has not made any request for the annual or half yearly statement of accounts. The submission of the opposite parties that the credit card is issued subject to terms and conditions and that late fee charges and service tax were levied only based on the terms and conditions is acceptable. Therefore there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We do not find any material evidence to prove that the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service and that the complainant is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the incomplaint.

Point No.2: In the result, the complaint deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the compliant is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of December 2009.

M/s.Vela & Co., by its

Proprietor S.Senthilkumar

S/o.K.Sathanandam,

11/12 Naththa Medu,

Kodumudi, Erode Taluk. .. Complainant. /Vs/;

1) The Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Gandhiji Road, Erode-1.

2) M/s.Professional Couriers,

Rep.by its Area Manager,

Professional Couriers Area Office,

Thangaperumal Street,

Gandhiji Road, Erode-1.

3) Shree Lakshmi Sizing Mills,

Rep.by its Partner: N.Ezlancheliyan,

15 Yamuna Street, Bharathi Theatre Road,

Erode 638 004.

4) N.Ezlancheliyan, 15, Yamuna Street,

Bharathi Theatre Road,

Veerappan Chatram, Erode-4.

5) Enba Jothi, 15 Yamuna Street,

Bharathi Theatre Road,

Veerappanchatram, Erode-4.

6) S.M.Saravanakumar,

87, Sengodagoudner Veethi,

Rathinapuri, Korimdu,

Yercaud Road, Salem-8. .. Opposite Parties.

This complaint came up for final hearing on 30.11.2009 before this Forum in the presence of Thiru.K.Sakthivel, Advocate for the complainant Thiru.S.A.Shanmugavel, Advocate for 1st opposite party and Thiru.M.Arutchelvan, Advocate for 2nd opposite party. Opposite parties 3 to 5 having appeared through counsel Thiru.P.M.Senthilkumar, B.Sc., B.L., Advocate have been set exparte on 25.1.08

/2/

for non appearance and not filing counter and the 6th opposite party called absent, no representation and set exparte on 29.11.07 and upon hearing the arguments of bothsides, and perusal of the records and having stood for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following :- ORDER

Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 2002. The averments in the complaint are as follows : - The complainant is doing fire-wood business under the name and style of Vela & Co., at Erode. The 3rd opposite party is the partnership firm and the opposite parties 4 to 6 are the partners. For the fire-wood purchased by the 3rd opposite party from 17.8.05 to 17.12.05, the 4th opposite party as a partner of the 3rd opposite party, issued 3 post date cheques bearing No.256498 for Rs.20,000/- dated 27.1.06 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, bearing No.755918 for Rs.23,390/- dated 31.01.2006 drawn on Indus Ind Bank, Erode and bearing No.755907 for Rs.20,000/- dated 17.2.06 drawn on IndusInd Bank, Erode along with some other cheques. The complainant presented the above said cheques for collection in the 1st opposite party, ICICI Bank, Erode on 30.5.06. On 6.6.06, the complainant went to the 1st opposite party and asked about the cheques presented for collection on 30.5.06. The Officer of the 1st opposite party informed that all the three cheques presented for collection on 30.5.06 itself were returned for want of funds and the cheques were sent to the complainant’s address through M/s. Professional Couriers, Erode-2nd opposite party on 31.5.06 its and asked the complainant to collect the same. The complainant immediately went to the office of the 2nd opposite party at Kodumudi and asked whether there is any letter to the complainant’s address. The complainant was informed that there was no letter for the complainant. The complainant, again approached the 1st opposite party on 26.6.06 and asked to return the dishonoured 3 cheques. The Officer of the 1st opposite party, simply said that, the dishonoured cheques were already sent to the complainant’s address through the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party is not responsible for non service of the same. The 1st opposite party Bank Officials did not properly answer to the complainant. The act of the Officials of the 1st opposite party bank amounts to deficiency in service to the complainant.

/3/

2) The complainant, preferred a complaint before the Town Police Station, Erode against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. As per the Enquiry Report of the Town Police Station, the dishonoured cheques, sent by 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party to the complainant, were delivered to the wrong person. The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not take any steps to secure the dishonoured cheques and hand over the same to the complainant. The Town Police Station Officers advised the complainant to take steps, through Court, to realise the amount.

3) Explaining the above said facts to the opposite parties 3 to 6 complainant requested them to pay the amount due under the above said dishonoured cheques. But the opposite parties 3 to 6 refused to honour the request of the complainant. Therefore the complainant issued lawyers’ notice dated 30.6.06, demanding the opposite parties 3 to 6, to pay the amount of Rs.63,390/- regarding the above mentioned 3 cheques. After receipt of the notice, opposite parties 3 to 6 did not comply with the demand of the complainant. The complainant, filed a case against the opposite parties 3 to 6 for the other dishonoured cheques before the Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi. Due to non delivery of the above said 3 cheques, the complainant is unable to file a case against the opposite parties 3 to 6. The amount due under the above said 3 cheques could not be collected from the opposite parties 3 to 6.

4) The opposite parties 1 and 2 committed deficiency in service in not returning dishonoured cheuqes to the complainant. The acts of the opposite parties caused great shock and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the dishonoured cheques amount of Rs.63,390/- with interest, at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of dishonour i.e. 30.5.06, and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony caused by the opposite parties. The complainant has preferred this complaint before this Forum for the above said reliefs.

5) Counter averments of the 1st opposite party are as follows :- The complaint is false, vexatious, unsustainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant

/4/

is put to strict proof of all the allegations contained in the complaint except the matters that are specifically admitted herein as true. The document No.3 and No.5 filed by the complainant will show that there is nothing wrong committed on the part of the 1st opposite party. As far as the 1st opposite party is concerned, as soon as the cheques were dishonoured, the 1st opposite party have returned the same through 2nd opposite party to the complainant, and that has been admitted by the 2nd opposite party. So, the 1st opposite party have not committed anything, wrong or illegal and the 1st opposite party is neither negligent nor deficient in their services. The other allegations that the Bank Officials did not properly answer and that they were not prepared to speak with complainant are absolute false. The allegation that the complainant has suffered mental agony, and distress are imaginary and absolute false. The compensation is unwarranted one. There is no cause of actions and the alleged cause of actions is imaginary. The 1st opposite party prayed this Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs and render justice.

6) Counter averments of the 2nd opposite party are as follows :- All the allegations against the 2nd opposite party are denied as false, except the matters specifically admitted herein as true. The 2nd opposite party did not know the relationship between the complainant and opposite parties 3 to 6 and their business transactions. The 2nd opposite party has no knowledge about the cheques mentioned in the complaint and presentation of the cheques in 1st opposite party’s bank for collection. The complainant has given a false complaint before the Town Police Station, Erode and the police threatened the 2nd opposite party and obtained signature in a blank letter pad of this opposite party. The consignment booked by the 1st opposite party was delivered to the addressee, in time. The 2nd opposite party has no knowledge about the contents inside the consignment. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. The complainant has no loco standi to file this complaint. The complaint, has been filed with the view to take revenge against the opposite parties 1 and 3 to 6, to get unlawful gain. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

/5/

7) On the basis of the complaint averments and counter averments, the following issues are framed.

1) Whether the complaint is maintainable against opposite parties 3 to 6 in this Forum ?

2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 ?

3) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for against all the opposite parties ?

8) To establish the case of the complainant, complainant, Thiru.Senthilkumar has been examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A7 marked. On the side of the 1st opposite party, Thiru.M.Selvam, Assistant Manager of the 1st opposite party Bank, has been examined as RW1 and no documents has been marked on his side. On the side of the 2nd opposite party, its Area Manager Thiru.K.Khajaa Mohideen has been examined as RW2 and no documents has been marked on his side.

9) Issue No.1 :- On plain reading of the complaint, the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties 3 to 6 are commercial in nature. Para 3 of the complaint reads, “The complainant is doing fire-wood business under the name and style of Vela & Co., at Erode. The 3rd opposite party is the partnership firm and the opposite parties 4 to 6 are the partners. For the fire-wood purchased by the 3rd opposite party from 17.8.05 to 17.12.05, the 4th opposite party as a partner of the 3rd opposite party issued 3 post date cheques bearing No.256498 for Rs.20,000/- dated 27.1.06 drawn on State Bank of Mysore; bearing No.755918 for Rs.23,390/- dated 31.01.2006 drawn on Indus Ind Bank, Erode and bearing No.755907 for Rs.20,000/- dated 17.2.06 drawn on IndusInd Bank, Erode along with some other cheques. The complainant presented the above said cheques, for collection in the 1st opposite party, ICICI Bank, Erode on 30.5.06. On 6.6.06, the complainant went to the 1st opposite party and asked about the cheques presented for collection on 30.5.06. The Officer of the 1st opposite party informed that all the three cheques presented for collection on 30.5.06 were returned for

/6/

want of funds,and the cheques were sent to the complainant’s address through M/s. Professional Couriers,Erode-2ndopposite party,on 31.5.06 itself and asked the complainant to collect the same. The complainant, immediately went to the office of the 2nd opposite party at Kodumudi an asked whether there is any letter to the complainant’s address. The complainant was informed that there was no letter for the complainant. The complainant, again approached the 1stopposite party on 26.6.06 and asked to return the dishonoured 3 cheques. The Officer of the 1st opposite party, simply said that, the dishonoured cheques were already sent to the complainant’s address through the 2ndopposite party and the 1st opposite party is not responsible for non service of the same. The 1st opposite party Bank Officials did not properly answer to the complainant. The act of the Officials of the 1st opposite party bank amounts to deficiency in service to the complainant.” Hence the transactions between the complainant and opposite parties 3 to 6 are commercial in nature, for which the complainant cannot seek any remedy before this Forum.

9) Issue Nos.2 & 3 :- The 3rdopposite parties purchased firewood from the complainant from 17.8.05 to 17.12.05. The opposite parties 4 to 6 are the partners of the 3rd opposite party firm. The 4th opposite party as a partner of the 3rd opposite party have issued 3 post dated cheques mentioned below :- 1) Cheque No.256498 of State Bank of Mysore dated 27.1.06 for Rs.20,000/-, 2) Cheque No.755918 of Indus Ind Bank, Erode dated 31.1.06 for Rs.23,390/- and 3) Cheque No.755907 of Indus Ind Bank, Erode dated 17.2.06 for Rs.20,000/-. The complainant, presented the above said 3 cheques along with other cheques for collection in the 1st opposite party, ICICI Bank, Erode on30.5.06. As per the counter statement of the 1stopposite party the 3 cheques presented by the complainant on 30.5.06 were returned to the complainant through the 2nd opposite party courier service. The counter statement of the 2nd opposite party in para 7 reads, “This respondent submits that the consignment booked at by the 1st respondent was delivered to the addressee in time.” Hence the 2ndopposite party has admitted that the consignment of the 1st opposite party addressed to the complainant was handed over to the 2nd opposite party for delivery to the complainant on 31.5.06. The same has been informed to the complainant on 6.6.06, when the complainant approached the 1st opposite party bank

/7/

regarding the 3 cheques presented for collection. The complainant immediately approached the 2nd opposite party’s office at Kodumudi and asked whether there is any letter in his name. But the 2nd opposite party has informed that there is no letter for the complainant. The complainant again approached the 1st opposite party on 20.6.06 and requested, to return the dishonoured cheques. But the officer of the 1st opposite party simply said that the dishonoured cheques were already sent to the complainant’s address through the 2nd opposite party Professional Courier and the Bank is not responsible for non service of the same. For the complainant’s further enquiry, the bank officials did not properly answer. The act of the officer of the 1stopposite party bank, amounts to deficiency of service to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party also did not properly answer to the complainant, when he approached the 2nd opposite party on 6.6.06, whether the letter sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant’s address has been delivered to the complainant or not. But he simply said to the complainant that there is no letter in the name of the complainant.

10) Hence the complainant, filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Erode on 30.6.06 against opposite parties 1 and 2. The true copy of the complaint has been marked as Exhibit A1. The true copy of the receipt for the complaint has been marked as Exhibit A2. In the complaint Exhibit A1, it has been stated, “ehd; gpd;dpl;L 6.6.06k; Njjpad;W I.rp.I.rp.I tq;fpf;F Nehpy; nrd;W fhNrhiyfs; t#yhfp tpl;ljh vd rhpghh;f;f nrd;wNghJ mq;fpUe;j tq;fp mYtyh; ePq;fs; t#Yf;Fg; Nghl;l Nkw;gb fhNrhiyfs; midj;Jk; <NuhL yl;Rkp irrpq; kpy; fzf;fpy; Nghjpa gzk; ,y;iy vd;W jpUg;gg;gl;Ltpl;ljhf nrhd;dhh;. ehd; Nkw;gb fhNrhiyfis vdf;Fj; jpUk;g jUkhW tq;fp mYtyhplk; Nfl;l NghJ mth; mitfs; midj;ijAk; cq;fs; Kfthpf;F 31.5.06k; Njjpad;Nw Gugrdy; $hpah; %ykhf mDg;gptpl;ljhfTk;> ePq;fs; nrd;W ngw;Wf;nfhs;Sq;fs; vdTk; $wpdhh;. ehd; nfhLKbapy; cs;s Gugrdy; $hpah; mYtyfj;jpw;F nrd;W tprhhpj;jNghJ cq;fs; Kfthpapy; jghy; VJk; ,y;iy vd;W $wpdhh;fs;. ehd; kPz;Lk; 26.6.06k; Njjpad;W I.rp.I.rp.I tq;fp> <NuhL fpisf;Fr; nrd;W $hpah; jghy; VJk; vdf;F tutpy;iy vd;W $wp tpsf;fk;

/8/

Nfl;lNghJ tq;fp mYtyh; vd;dplk; Gugrdy; $hpahpy; mDg;gpajw;Fz;lhd fhNrhiyfs; tpguj;jpidAk;> $hpahpd; gjpT vz;fisAk; vOj;J %ykhd ifnahg;gkpl;l fbjj;jpid nfhLj;J ehq;fs; Nkw;gb fhNrhiyfis $hpahpy; mDg;gptpl;Nlhk;. ,Jgw;wp ,dpNky; vq;fsplk; vJTk; Nfl;ff;$lhJ vd;W $wptpl;lhh;.” The 1st opposite party has reported the same to the 2nd opposite party in his letter dated 18.6.06. The true copy of the letter addressed by the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party has been marked as Exhibit A3. The body of the letter reads, “ We would like to bring to your notice the following consignment was taken by you on 31.5.06. The airway bill of the consignment is 102073925. The customer claims that he has not received the consignment till date. Please confirm us the status of the consignment.” From Exhibit A3 it is learnt that the 1st opposite party has addressed to the 2nd opposite party on 18.6.06 stating that the consignment No.102073925 has not been received by the customer and requested by the 3rd opposite party to confirm the status of the consignment. The 2ndopposite party did not reply to the 1stopposite party immediately. In the meanwhile one Thiru.V.Elavarasan who is the part time employee of the 2nd opposite party, has submitted his statement to the Sub Inspector of Police (Crime), Erode Town Police Station on 22.7.06. True copy of the statement of Thiru.V.Elavarasan has been marked as Exhibit A4. In Exhibit A4 it has been stated, “1.6.06 ehsd;W “Vela & Co., Byepass Road, Kodumudi” vd;w tpyhrj;jpw;F rhptu Kfthp njhpahj $hpah; xd;W nlypthp nra;a Neh;e;jJ. ,g;gbg;gl;l Kfthp gioa g];Nlz;;l; To Gjpa g];Nlz;;l ,ilg;gl;l njhiyT tiuAs;s (,lj;ij) ,ilg;gl;l gFjpiaAk; rhh;e;jitahFk;. gioa g]; epiyak; Kjy; Gjpa g];epiyak; tiu tprhhpj;jjpd; Kbtpy;> Gjpa g]; epiyak; mUfpYs;s “rjh]; g]; fk;ngdpiar; rhh;e;j $hpah; vd njhpa te;jgbahy; mij ehd; rjh]; g];; mytyfj;jpy; tprhhpj;Njd;. mYtyfj;jpypUe;j eghplk; tprhhpj;jnghOJ ,J jq;fspd; jghy; ($hpah;) vd $wNt> mij mthplk; nlypthp nra;J> ifnahg;gk; thq;fpf;nfhz;L> mjd; Acknowledgment Copy-I From ml;u]; Md ICICI Bank <Nuhl;bw;F mDg;gpitf;fg;gl;Ltpl;lJk; ,jdpilNa rpy ehl;fs; (mjhtJ) Rkhh; 22 ehl;fs; fopj;j gpd;dh; jq;fSf;F te;J

/9/

NruNtz;ba jghy; tutpy;iy vd rjh]; g]; Owner complaint nra;Js;shh;.” From Exhibit A4 it is clear that the Tapal addressed to the complainant has been delivered in the office of Sathas Bus Company and not to the complainant.

11) The 2nd opposite party has submitted a reply letter dated 28.7.06 for Exhibit A3. The true copy of the reply letter has been marked as Exhibit A5, Exhibit A5 reads, “ Sub: Wrong delivery of your document vide our consignment No.102073925 dated 31.05.2006 regarding.

We received your letter of 18.6.2006. Regarding above cited subject only on 24.7.2006. We investigated the matter and finally we knew that the above said document was wrongly delivered to some other person. We tried our level best to trace out but we have not been able to trace the same. The inconvenience caused to you in this connection is deeply regretted. More over you are kindly requested to advise us for further proceedings.”

In Exhibit A5, it hsa been admitted by the 2nd opposite party that the consignment No.102073925 dated 31.5.06 has been wrongly delivered to some other person and the same could not be traced out in spite of their best efforts. Hence the statement of Thiru.V.Elavarasan part time employee of the 2nd opposite party has been accepted by the 2nd opposite party as per Exhibit A5.

12) The Sub Inspector of Police (Crimes), Erode Town Police Station has sent a notice to the complainant, regarding the complaint Exhibit A1 on 12.8.06 and the notice has been marked as Exhibit A6. Exhibit A6 it has been stated “Gfhh; rk;ge;jkhf tprhuiz Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;ljpy; Muk;gj;jpy; midj;J fhNrhiyfSk; Gugrdy; $hpah; epWtdj;jpd; %yk; thjpahfpa cq;fSf;F mit gTd;]; Mfptpl;ljhy; jpUg;gp mDg;gg;gl;ljhf vOj;J %yk; njhptpj;j tq;fp eph;thfk; mtw;wpy; xU fhNrhiy kl;Lk; tq;fpapNyNa ,Ug;gjhf $wp 1.7.06k; Njjp cq;fsplNk Nehpy; mf;fhNrhiyia xg;Gtpj;Js;sJ. NkYk; ,ju 3 fhNrhiyfSk; cq;fsplk; $hpah; epWtdk; %yk; nfhLf;fg;gl;Ltpl;ljhf POD

/10/

(Proof of Delivery)ia rkh;g;gp;j;Js;sJ tq;fp eph;thfk;. Nkw;gb POD rk;ge;jkhf $hpah; epWtdj;Jld; tprhuiz Nkw;nfhz;ljpy; mJ NtW tpyhrj;jpy; NtW xU egUf;F toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ njspthf njhpate;Js;sJ.”

From the above versions, it is learnt that even though the 1st opposite party has stated that all the cheques returned were sent through the 2nd opposite party. But later one cheque has been traced out, in the 1st opposite party’s bank and the same has been handed over to the complainant on 1.7.06. In Exhibit A4 complaint also 4 cheques have been mentioned, including the complaint mentioned 3 cheques. Hence it is doubtful whether the complaint mentioned 3 cheques have been sent to the 2nd opposite party by the 1st opposite party, in consignment No.102073925 dated 31.5.06. The 1st opposite party did not produce any documentary evidence to show that the complaint mentioned cheques were sent, in the above mentioned consignment. The 2nd opposite party also mentioned in his counter that he did not know the contents of the consignment. The 2nd opposite party has stated in para 7, “ This respondent submits that the consignment booked of the 1st respondent was delivered to the addressee in time.” But the 2nd opposite party has admitted that the consignment No. 102073925 dated 31.5.06 has been wrongly delivered to some other person in Exhibit A5. Even though the 2nd opposite party has stated in his counter that the signature of the 2nd opposite party has been obtained in his letter pad under threat in the Erode Town Police Station, he did not object for marking of Exhibit A5.

13) Hence it is clearly learnt that the complaint mentioned 3 cheques have been presented to he 1st opposite party bank for collection on 30.5.06 and the same have not honoured for insufficiency of fund. But the 3 returned cheques not reached the complainant. The 3 cheques have been given on behalf of the 3rd opposite party firm by its partner 4th opposite party. The complainant could not collect the cheque amounts from opposite parties 3 to 6 without the returned cheques from the 1st opposite party. The complainant also could not initiate criminal proceedings under Sec.138 of the Negotiable

/11/

Instrument Act against opposite parties 3 to 6. Due to the deficiency in service of the 1st opposite party as well as its agent 2nd opposite party, the complainant could not take action for recovery of the amounts due under 3 cheques. In the complaint, the amounts due under the 3 cheques has been mentioned as Rs.63,390/-. The xerox copy of the notice dated 30.6.06 sent to the opposite parties 3 to 6 has been marked as Exhibit A7. In Exhibit A7 the cheque numbers have not been mentioned, but the date of the cheques and the name o the banks and the amounts have been mentioned. In the complaint the 1st cheque bearing No.256498 of State Bank of Mysore dated 27.1.06 is for Rs.20,000/-. In Exhinit A7 also the date of cheque and the amount mentioned is the same. In the complaint the 2nd cheque bearing No.755918 dated 31.1.06 of IndusInd Bank, Erode is for Rs.23,390/-. But in Exhibit A7, cheque dated 31.1.06 of IndusInd Bank, Erode it has Rs.29,685/-. In complaint, cheque bearing No.755907 dated 17.2.06 of IndusInd Bank is for Rs.20,000/-. But in Exhibit A7, the IndusInd Bank cheque dated 17.2.06 is for Rs.22,279/-. Hence the total amount mentioned in the complaint mentioned cheques and the Exhibit A7 mentioned cheque differs. Hence we could not fix the correct cheque amounts due under the 3 cheques mentioned in the complaint. The missed cheque also were not encashed in the 1st opposite party’s bank. The complainant having every right to claim the cheque amounts from opposite parties 3 to 6 in the appropriate Forum. Hence this Forum cannot order for return of the cheque amounts. Any how the complainant could not take criminal action under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, against the opposite parties 3 to 6, for want of the dishonoured and missed 3 cheques. Until the cheques returned by the 1st opposite party, reaches the complainant, the 1st opposite party is responsible for the same. Even if the 1st opposite party sent the 3 returned cheques to the complainant through the 2nd opposite party, (his agent) the 1st opposite party is vicariously liable for the wrong delivery of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the negligence service of the 1st opposite party and its agent 2nd opposite party. We come to the conclusion the compensation claimed by the complainant is normal and acceptable.



/12/

14) In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- with costs of the proceedings of Rs.1000/- within two months from the date of this order. Dictated to the Assistant/Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum this the 2nd day of December 2009.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/45

Bijon Chatterjee
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Chief Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

ORDER

In the Court of the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 45 / 2008

1) Sri Bijon Chatterjee,

Flat No.4 B & C, Gangotri Apartment,

Garia Gardens, Kolkata-84. ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1) The Chief Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Home Loan,

3A, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-19. ---------- Opposite Party

Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member

Order No. 1 9 Dated 1 9 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 .

Complainant Bijan Chatterjee by filing a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act on 8.2.08 has prayed for issuing direction upon the o.p. ICICI Bank Ltd., Home Loan, 2-A, Upperwood Street, Bachawat Building, P.S. Bhawanipur, Kolkata-20 to supply copy of the original of the registration title deed of his property lying in the custody of ICICI Bank, Home Loan Deptt. and for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs with cost.

His main grievance is that he took home loan of Rs.10,41,000/- on 7.1.02, Rs.1,04,000/- on 18.9.02 and top up loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 25.11.03 and out of those three loans he had already paid back Rs.3,70,000/- to the o.p. after which two notices on 16.8.07 and 29.6.07 u/s 13(2) of the securitization and reconstruction of financial asset and enforcement of securities Interest Act of 2002 were sent to him to clear up all the pending dues for the three loans against his residential property appertaining to Dag no.350, RS Khatian no.658-4 B/C, JIL no.47, Holding no.1970 Garia Gardens Kolkata-84 within 60 days of the notice. On receipt of such notice he prepared his registered title deed, but as the original of the registered title deed is lying in the custody of the o.p. he wrote them letter on 1.11.07 and reminder on 20.11.07 requesting to supply copy of the original deed of his said property, but as they have not yet replied back he has filed this case and for such inaction and dilatory tactics on the part of the o.p. he has undergone serious mental agony and harassment and accordingly he has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.

Decision with reasons :

Complainant has clearly admitted that on 7.1.02, 18.9.02 and 25.11.02 he took home loan from the o.p to the tune of Rs.13,45,000/- and out of it he has paid back Rs.3,70,000/- to the o.p. For the purpose of registration of his residential house the copy of the original title deed is required, but o.p. has not supplied the same and the said deed is lying in the custody of the o.p.

We have perused the annexures and it appears from annex-H, a letter dt.16.8.06 addressed to the complainant and his wife by the o.p. wherein they have asked the complainant by giving a final opportunity to clear all the amounts due from them in terms of the agreement within 7 days from the receipt of this notice, failing which they will proceed without any further notice by taking legal action against them. We have also perused the notice u/s 13 of the 13(2) of the securitization and reconstruction of financial asset and enforcement of securities Interest Act of 2002 and annexed with the notice. We have also perused the letter dt.1.11.07 wherein the complainant had requested the o.p. to supply a copy of the registered title deed but for registration of his property described above and the reminder also. We have also perused the affidavit of evidence of the complainant and there the complainant has also stated that on 7.1.02 he took loan of Rs.10,41,000/- and on 18.9.02 he also took loan of Rs.1,04,000/- and on 25.11.03 he again took top up loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and out of the said loan he paid back Rs.3,70,000/- to the o.p. But the o.p. thereafter sent notices on 16.8.07 and 26.9.07 u/s 13(2) of the securitization and reconstruction of financial asset and enforcement of securities Interest Act of 2002 to clear up all the dues, failing which they will take legal action against him. He has also stated that he made payment of Rs.5,36,672/- to the promoter at the time of buying the property and he spent Rs.1,25,000/- for registration of the property and he also spent Rs.6,50,000/- for interior decoration of the property. We have also perused the evidence on affidavit of the complainant and the B.N.A. There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.

Hence

ordered

The petition of complaint is allowed ex parte against the o.p. ICICI Bank Home Loan. O.p. is directed to supply the copy of the original title deed of the property of the complainant appertaining to Dag no.350, RS Khatian no.658-4 B/C, JIL no.47, Holding no.1970 Garia Gardens Kolkata-84 positively within 45 days from the date of communication of this order subject to condition that meanwhile the complainant must pay the unpaid residual amount of loan, if any, to the o.p. The complainant do also get an award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct.

Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.

Consumer Complaint No

1380 of 2009

Date of Institution

06.10.2009

Date of Decision

13.01.2010

Pioneer Sales, through its Sole Proprietor Mr.Rakesh Bansal, S.C.O. 41, Sector-7, Panchkula
…..Complainant….

V E R S U S

1]ICICI Bank Ltd. Regional Office at Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2]ICICI Bank Ltd., S.C.O.36, Pocket 1, N.A.C., Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Chand Deep Jindal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

Succinctly put, the complainant closed his bank account from ICICI Bank, Manimajra (OPs) on 15.04.08. All the dues were paid by the complainant and the account closure form was issued to the complainant by the OP bank. After that the complainant received a letter dated 31.03.09 from the OP-bank which showed a sum of Rs.718.38/- as outstanding dues towards the complainant. He immediately went to the office of the OP bank regarding the same. He was assured by the OP bank that the said letter had been issued by mistake and there was no need to deposit the said amount of Rs.718.38/-. Again, he received a letter dated 31.05.09, in which a sum of Rs.1171.58/- was again demanded by the OP bank. The complainant again visited OP-2 but was not responded positively by the OP bank. That again he received a letter dated 31.07.09 for sum of Rs.2544.18/- from the OP bank. The complainant again went to the OP-2 regarding the above facts. The OP bank told him that as per the information available on the computer, the said outstanding was due towards him. The OP bank further threatened him to deposit the outstanding amount at the earliest. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed that the OP bank be directed to pay costs of litigation alongwith compensation towards mental torture, pain and agony suffered by him.

2. Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply the Learned Counsel for the OPs submitted that the account of the complainant had already been zeroised and no legal notice had been issued to the complainant for the payment of any such amount as had been relied upon by the complainant. OPs further submitted that Annexure C-2 was neither a notice nor a letter that was merely a statement of the account of the complainant. They further submitted that the account was not closed, as all the necessary formalities had not been completed, however the same was later closed on 8.10.09. OPs had denied regarding any visit of the complainant to them. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant the OP bank pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including the written arguments.

5. It is argued by the ld.Counsel for the OPs that a current account is always opened for a commercial purpose and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer and the Consumer Forum would not have any jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. We, however, do not find any merit in this contention in view of the authority of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr.B.N.Raman, 2005-2008 S.C. & National Commission Consumer Law Cases 149 in which it was held that banking is a business transaction between the bank and customers and such customers are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the act. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Punjab National Bank vs. L.N.Navetia, 2005-2008 S.C. & National Commission Consumer Law Cases 282 have also held to the same effect. This argument is, therefore, devoid of merit.

6. Annexure C-1 is the Account Closure Form, which was duly received by the OP bank. The Form was submitted on 15.4.2008, which fact is admitted by the OPs. However, the account of the complainant was not closed even for one year and the OPs issued him the account statement Ann.C-2, dated 31.3.2009 showing that a sum of Rs.718.38Ps. was due from him. According to the complainant, he approached the bank officials of the OPs, who assured that the account will be closed and he would not receive any statement in future but it all proved to be wrong when he again received the statement of account Ann.C-3, dated 31.5.2009 showing an amount of Rs.1171.58Ps. due from him. The complainant had to again run to the OPs and make a request for closure of account but again the same was not done despite assurances and the complainant received another statement of account Ann.C-4, dated 31.8.2009 showing that a sum of Rs.3029.38Ps. was due from him. However, now the OPs have mentioned in Para No.5 of the reply that the amounts have already been made zero and the account has also been made zero for the purpose of bringing the litigation to an end. It is, however, not mentioned as to why the account was not promptly closed and if the same was closed why the account statements were being sent to the complainant causing him mental and physical harassment. There was, therefore, certainly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental & physical harassment. The amount of compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.2200/- shall be paid by the OPs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay the same along with penal interest At the rate of 12% per annum since the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 6.10.2009 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

Complaint Case No :1310 of 2009

Date of Institution : 09.09.2009

Date of Decision : 12.01.2010

Harmeet Kaur wife of Manohar Singh, Resident of H.No.1349/1, MIG Phase-11, Mohali (now at F-440, Industrial Area, Phase VIII-B, Mohali)
….…Complainant

V E R S U S

ICICI Bank through its Manager, SCO No.181-182, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party
CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP
PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

In brief, the complainant took a loan of Rs.1.00 lakh from OP Bank and paid Rs.1,00,760/- through installments. However, an amount of Rs.27,480/- was over due for which a settlement was arrived at between the complainant and OP Bank vide Ann.C-1 and as per said settlement the complainant had to pay Rs.22,000/- only which she paid vide Ann.C-2 on 21.1.2008. It is averred that inspite of making the payment as agreed vide Ann.C-1, the OP Bank got declared her as Proclaimed Offender in a case filed by them before the court of Ld.J.M.I.C., Jalandhar vide Ann.C-3. Then the complainant had to approach the OP Bank where she was told to pay another amount Rs.23,000/- vide Ann.C-4 as full & final settlement or else she would be arrested in the case. Ultimately, the complainant having no other alternative had to pay Rs.23,000/- to OP Bank vide Ann.C-5. It is asserted that the complainant had to pay twice because of the illegal act of OP Bank. It is also asserted that due to the above deficient act of OP as well as unfair trade practice adopted by them, the complainant and her family members had to suffer great mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

2] OP filed reply and admitted that loan was granted to the complainant. It is stated that the complainant was defaulter in making regular payment of the monthly installments of Rs.458-/- each and she just paid 23 installments as against 36 installments. It is admitted that Rs.22,000/- was received by the OP Bank, however, it is stated that the same has been received as full & final settlement as alleged by the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant was declared P.O. by the court because of her non-appearance inspite of court directions in a case filed by OP bank under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It is admitted that complainant approached the bank for settlement of account and paid the amount. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5] The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant was a chronic defaulter and a number of cheques issued by her failed/dishonored by the bank regarding which notice was also served on her but she did not make the payment. Ultimately a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against her. The Learned Counsel argued that in view of the conduct of the complainant, she is not entitled to any concession. However when the facts of the case are viewed it is found that the OP itself ignored this fact when it issued a letter Annexure C-1 dated 21.01.08 asking her to pay Rs.22,000/- as one installment in full and final settlement of her case. It was made clear that all the legal cases will be withdrawn after the above payment was made. Annexure C-1 was accepted by the complainant and she made the payment on the same day vide Annexure C-2. The OP has also agreed vide Annexure C-1, that the N.O.C. would be issued within 7 days. The N.O.C. was however not issued nor was the criminal case instituted against her at Jallandhar was withdrawn by the OP in compliance with the terms and conditions vide Annexure C-1. The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the warrants were got issued against her and she was got declared a proclaimed offender. When the complainant again approached the OP, she was issued another letter Annexure C-4 dated 24.01.09 asking her to pay another sum of Rs.23,000/- towards full and final settlement in one installment. It was also agreed through this letter that all the legal cases filed by the bank in court of law against her in respect of the above mentioned personal loan amount shall be withdrawn after the above mentioned payment was realized. The complainant accepted Annexure C-4 and deposited the said amount of Rs.23,000/- on 24.01.09 itself. However the OP, as earlier, did not withdraw the legal cases and did not issue the N.O.C. to the complainant due to which she had to file this complaint. In this manner whether the complainant had been a bad debtor or not that conduct is of no help to the OP to oppose this complaint. The question is when the OP had agreed to accept the amount of Rs.22,000/- towards full and final settlement vide Annexure C-1 and agreed to withdraw all the legal cases filed against her and to issue N.O.C. within 7 days would be justified in resiling from the said undertaking. Our answer to the above question is in the negative. It is in fact not only deficiency in service on the part of the OP but an unfair trade practice also whereby they go on extracting money from their customers on the pretext of full and final settlement.

6] The Learned Counsel for the OP has also argued that an application has been moved before the Court at Jallandhar for withdrawal of the case but the Court had not permitted the withdrawal, since the complainant has been declared a proclaimed offender. The Learned Counsel however could not produce the copy of any application moved by the OP before the Criminal Court or the statement made by it for withdrawing the criminal case nor the orders passed by the Court declining their requests. It is therefore clear that false pleas are being made by the OP in this respect just to justify inaction on their part.

7] The Learned Counsel for the OP has also argued that Annexure C-1 was not issued by their bank and therefore they are not bound by it. We do not find any merit in this argument also. The OP has not produced any evidence to suggest if this document was not issued by them. In fact it is issued on the Letter Pad of the OP bank having the Ref. No. of the loan and signed by their authorized signatory giving in the end their office address and above all the amount of Rs.22,000/- was accepted by the OP bank vide Annexure C-2 on the same day. It therefore cannot be said if this document Annexure C-1 was not issued by the OP bank. Otherwise also if the OP bank has several authorized signatories, it would be totally difficult for the complainants to dispute the genuineness of any of them. The OP also cannot be permitted to withdraw the undertaking made by it on the basis of which the amounts have been received from the customers. Allowing such an argument would be giving the OP an excuse to fleece the customers on the pretext of accepting the full and final settlement and thereafter denying that any such full and final settlement offer was made by it. That would shake the confidence of the common man in the entire banking system.

8] The conduct of the OP had been of an unreliable Institution from the very beginning. The OP did not produce any statement as to what amount was due from the complainant on 21.01.08 for which they had undertaken to accept Rs.22,000/- towards full and final settlement which was deposited by the complainant on the same date. The OP undertook to withdraw all the legal cases but they did not. The OPs undertook to issue the N.O.C. within 7 days but they did not. Again, another offer was made vide Annexure C-4 the complainant perforce made the payment of Rs.23,000/- it was also accepted by the OP vide Annexure C-5. The OP again did not withdraw the legal cases lodged against the complainant and did not issue the N.O.C. They have thereby not only extracted the amount of Rs.23,000/- from the complainant but had also caused her mental and physical harassment. The OP even lost sight of the fact that the customer is a women.

9] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is therefore directed to refund the amount of Rs.23,000/- and also issue the N.O.C. to the complaint and pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing her mental and physical harassment. The amount shall be paid alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the OP would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 09.09.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Complaint Case No : 176 of 2008

Date of Institution : 17.02.2008

Date of Decision : 11.01.2010

Ramesh Kumar son of Late Sh. Sadhu Ram, Resident of H.No.363, sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

(1) The Managing Director, ICICI Bank Ltd., “Landmark”, Race Course Circle, Vadodara – 390007.

(2) The General Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051, India.

(3) The Manager, ICICI Bank Limited (Credit Card Division), SCO No. 151-152, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT

SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER

PRESENT: Sh.S.K.Rishi, Adv. for the Complainant.

Sh.Gagandeep Toni, Adv. for OPs.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

Concisely put, the Complainant, who is a Teacher by profession, was lured by the OP Bank and had been thrusted a credit card No. 517719401856007 of the OPs, valid from Feb., 2004 to Feb.,2007, which he never used, as evident from ‘Unsigned’ Amortization Schedule (Annexure C-1), supplied by the OPs. During the last week of Dec., 2004, one Ms. Sangeeta informed him on telephone that he was very lucky to have a lottery of Rs.25,500/- from amongst the Credit Card Holders of the OP Bank under a Scheme, which would reach him soon and the lottery amount was without any kind of charges. The said lottery amount of Rs.25,500/- stood credited to his account on 23.12.2004, vide Cheque No. 725253, which was evident from Bank Statement Annexure C-2 & C-3 respectively. To his utter dismay, when he received the unsigned copy of the Amortization Schedule in the month of Jan., 2005, the said lottery was shown as EMI Amount and Principal Amount with interest with effect from 17.12.2004. He approached the OPs and told them that he never applied for any loan or entered into any agreement and neither withdrew the cash, but all in vain and he was told that he had to return the said amount through installments as shown in the Amortization Schedule. Having no option left, he started repaying the same with effect from 11.04.2005, sometimes through cheques and sometimes in cash (Annexure C-4/4A). It was alleged that to add insult to his injuries, the OPs served him a legal notice dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure C-5), informing him that his credit card payments were inconsistent and irregular, hence legal proceeding could be taken against him as an amount of Rs.46,766.44/- was outstanding against him on the said date. Still inspite of all this, the Complainant kept on paying the installments till 20.6.2007 and had paid Rs.59,325/- till then, but the OP Bank never issued complete accounts statement regularly. There was further big shock in store for the Complainant when he received another notice dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure C-6) from the Law Firm ‘JUS JURIS’, showing the Complainant as intentional defaulter and for recovery of amount, large heartedness of the OPs was shown to settle the dispute through Conciliation. A threat was also given to the Complainant to initiate criminal and civil proceedings against him. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund Rs.59,325/- paid by the Complainant and Rs.54,743.49/- demanded by the OPs, along with interest @18% p.a., besides damages for harassment & defamation. Further, the Complainant prayed that the OPs be burdened with Rs.12,500/- towards costs of litigation.

2] Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3] OPs in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the card in question was issued to the Complainant on his request. It was denied that the Complainant was not aware of the loan of Rs.25,500/- given to him by the OPs. In fact, he himself agreed to the pre-approved loan sanctioned to him and gave his account number for transfer of funds. He was provided the Amortization Schedule for repayment of loan taken by him, but he did not pay as per Schedule and was a regular defaulter. He was never conveyed that funds transferred to him was a lottery money and that he need not repay the same. It was asserted that after taking the loan, the Complainant started paying the amount taken by him, though irregularly, which makes it clear that it was in his knowledge that he owed the said amount to the Bank. He had been regularly using the card as per his need, but did not return the money as per Schedule and Statements provided to him. OPs exercised their legal rights to recover their money by sending him reminders and legal notice. He was also invited to attend the conciliation camp organized by the OPs to reconcile the matter, but despite of all that he did not pay the amount, he owed to the Bank. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5] We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant and OP No. 1, 2 & 3. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i] The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant holding a Credit Card No.517719401856007 of OPs, valid from Feb. 2004 to Feb. 2007 and that the OPs sent him a sum of Rs.25,500/-, in December, 2004, which he utilized and for which he also paid EMIs, starting with Jan., 2005, for a period of two years, have all been established. The Complainant was to pay EMIs @ Rs.1221.88P for a period of 24 months from 17.01.2005 to 17.12.2006. As per the Complainant, the entire amount of Rs.25,500/-, along with interest @8% p.a. has already been paid by him to the OPs and as such, the amount paid by the OPs has been repaid by him in toto and now, nothing remains due towards OPs.

ii] The disputed points between the parties have been, (i) that the Complainant claims that he was informed by one Ms. Sangeeta of the OPs that he had won a lottery prize of Rs.25,500/- from amongst the Credit Card Holders of the OP Bank under some Scheme and as such, the said amount was not repayable by him. On the contrary, the OPs have contested the contention of the Complainant by saying that the said amount was a loan and not a lottery prize. It has attached the Amortization Schedule (Annexure C-1) in support of its contention by saying that not only the Complainant had applied for the loan, but he had also given his Savings Bank Account number, where the said amount was duly credited by the OPs on 17.12.2004, vide Cheque No. 726253, the said amount was duly received by the Complainant, he also got the Amortization Schedule and started paying the EMIS. Therefore, as per the OPs, there was no question of the Complainant saying that it was only a lottery prize and not the loan. In our opinion, this question, as of now, has become totally irrelevant, on account of the fact that the Complainant had duly received the said amount in his account, utilized the same for his personal use and also started repaying the EMIS and thereby, fully acknowledging the receipt of the said amount, as well as confirming its utilization/ repayment with interest. (ii) Another point of contention between the parties is that whereas, the Complainant says that he had hardly used the Credit Card for making transactions/ purchases, but the OPs say that the Complainant has been regularly using the Credit Card. In support of its contention, the OPs have annexed the Statements of Accounts, showing certain transactions amounting to Rs.32,426/- (approx.), on different dates, but no details of the Vouchers or Bills have been annexed, in support of their contention. Even accepting for a moment, that the Complainant did make these purchases, he has already paid a total sum of Rs.59,325/-, as on 20th June, 2007, which covers not only the loan amount of Rs.25,500/- + interest with the total repayable amount of Rs.29,328/-, but also for the alleged transactions made by him against the said Credit Card.

iii] A detailed study of all the Statements of Accounts submitted by the OPs shows that the main dispute between the Complainant and the OPs is not the repayments made by the Complainant or the use of Credit Card by him, but the contentious amount only relate to interest charges, service tax, late payment charges and annual fee etc,, due to which the OPs claimed that the Complainant still owes to them Rs.54,743.49/- as on 16.10.2007. The said amount further rose to Rs.57,961.64/- as on 20.10.2007. While going through the Statement of Accounts submitted by the OPs, it is found that they have not taken into account all the amounts paid by the Complainant between 31.3.2006 and 20.6.2007, amounting to Rs.32,740/-, for which the Complainant has attached the receipts, issued by the OPs/ their Agents, for having received the said amount. These amounts were paid either in cash or through Cheque/DD by the Complainant to the OPs. The receipts are at Annexure C-19 to C-26 respectively. It appears that the OPs have not taken into account the said sum of Rs.32,740/-, while demanding the outstanding amount of Rs.54,743.49/- from the Complainant. As already stated, the OPs have further not submitted the detailed Vouchers and Bills in support of their claims of certain amounts payable by the Complainant to them for the transactions said to have been made by the Complainant.

6] Keeping in view the above stated detailed analysis of the case, it is quite clear that the amount demanded by the OPs from the Complainant i.e. a sum of Rs.54,743.49/- as on 16.10.2007 and Rs.57,961.64/-, as on 20.10.2007, is wholly illegal and hence, untenable. The Complainant has not only liquidated the entire loan amount, along with agreed rate of interest (total Rs.29,328/-), in the shape of EMIs from time to time, but has also paid an additional about Rs.30,000/- against certain transactions said to have been made by him against the said Credit Card. Therefore, nothing remains due and payable by him to the OPs and, as such, any further claims made by the OPs against the Complainant cannot be accepted on the grounds cited by the OPs.

7] Keeping in view the foregoings, it is our considered view that the present complaint has a lot of weight, substance and merit. We, therefore, decide the complaint accordingly. There is apparently gross deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and also indulgence in unfair trade practice on their part in claiming the wholly illegal and untenable huge amounts from the Complainant. However, the prayer of the Complainant for the refund of Rs.59,325/- paid by him to the OPs cannot be accepted on the ground that he had himself accepted the loan from the OPs, utilized the same for his personal use and also paid back the EMIs on his own. As a matter of fact, if he was not interested to take the said amount, he could have returned the entire loan amount to the OPs on the day he received the amount from them. Therefore, his prayer for OPs refunding the sum of Rs.59,325/- is not tenable. Keeping the above stated facts and circumstances in view, we decide the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs and pass the following orders:-

(i) The OPs shall waive in full all the claims raised by them against the Complainant, against the Credit Card No.517719401856007 issued by them in the name of the Complainant, especially the sum of Rs.54,743.49P as on 16.10.2007/ Rs.57,961.64P as on 20.10.2007, and accordingly, issue a “No Due Certificate” to the Complainant, specifically stating that they have no claims, whatsoever against the Complainant. However, in case, the Credit Card is still alive and the Complainant has utilized the Credit Card further i.e. After 20.10.2007, he is liable to pay to the OPs the relevant amounts, against the purchases or other transactions made by him on supply of statements of Accounts, as well as related Vouchers/Bills to that effect.

(ii) The OPs shall pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant on account of making wholly untenable and illegal claims and demands of heavy amounts on the Complainant.


(iii) The OPs shall pay litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.

8] The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall pay the sum of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of the filing of this complaint i.e. 17.02.2008, till the date of realization, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/- and also complying with the order as at (i) in the foregoings.

9] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

No. DF(Central)/2010/ Dated:

Complaint No.140/2009
Sh.Javed Kumar,

S/o Sh.Ram Dulare,

R/o 276/3, Gali No.-3,

Main Road, Shiv Vihar,

Delhi-110094. Complainants



Versus.
ICICI Bank Limited,

Videocon Towers, 2nd floor,

Block E-1, Jhandewalan,

New Delhi. Opposite Party

ORDER

SH.B.B.CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT.

The complainant purchased a Maruti Van bearing No.DL-5CC-8804 Model No.2005 bearing Engine No.FB-BIN-2969767 Chassis No. MA3EVBU500718957 new Chassis No.MA3EVB11300816193 on 06.04.2007 from one Sh.Sanjay, for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. The complainant got that vehicle financed/ hypothecated from the OP Bank to the tune of Rs.1,24,000/- payable in 36 equal installments of Rs.4,514/- each. The complainant could pay only nine (9) installments of the total amount of Rs.40,626/-. He fell sick and as such he could not pay the balance installments.

The complainant has pleaded that after recovery from illness, he started plying the vehicle. On 12.01.2009, he was bringing the passengers from Hardwar to Delhi and then in the way at Jwalapur, Hardwar, the Recovery staff of the OP Bank, headed by one Sh.Vinay, took the forcible possession of the vehicle illegally and unauthorizedly. Sh.Vinay obtained the signature of the complainant on the voluntarily surrender letter of the vehicle. After obtaining the signature of the complainant, Sh.Vinay noted down over the letter “Received vehicle at Jwalapur Hardwar as per inventory list vehicle empty condition in vehicle no cash no jewelry etc.” Luggage/ baggage of the passengers were lying with the vehicle.

The complaint has been filed for deficiency of service because of forcible taking possession of the vehicle. It has caused not only the financial losses to the complainant but also harassment and the mental agony.

The OP Bank has filed reply to oppose the complaint. It has taken the plea that the complainant voluntarily surrendered the vehicle and signed the letter of surrender, dated 12.01.2009. The plea of forcible taking of the possession, is an after thought. The complainant could not pay the EMIs of the loan amount and as such peacefully surrendered the vehicle.

The complainant has filed the rejoinder to deny the defence taken by the OP.

The complainant has filed evidence by way of his affidavit.

The OP has not lead evidence and it has relied upon to its reply to the complaint.

The complainant has filed the written arguments.

We have heard Sh.S.H.Choudhary, A/R of the complainant and Sh.Shalabh Gupta, Advocate, Counsel for the OP.

So far, the facts regarding the hypothecation of the vehicle, taking of the loan amount from the OP Bank and non-payment of EMIs by the complainant are concerned, the same are not in disputed. The question for consideration is “as to whether the complainant voluntarily and peacefully surrendered the vehicle or the representatives of OP Bank forcible took the possession and obtained the signature of the complainant on the letter of surrender?”

It has not been denied by the OP Bank that the possession of the vehicle was taken at Jwalapur, Hardwar. It is not the defence of the OP Bank that it had served any notice to the complainant for non-payment of EMIs or taking over the possession of the vehicle. The Bank has not explained the circumstances under which its representative was present at Jwalapur, Hardwar to take the possession of the vehicle. The letter of possession is having computerized printing of the matter but the details of the loan agreement, particulars of the vehicle, particulars of the loan taken and addresses are hand written. If, the letter would have been prepared by the complainant then he must have also got printed the aforesaid particulars in the letter itself. It appears that the representative of the OP Bank was having blank letter of surrender and wrote the particulars in the blank space in the letter and obtained the signature and thumb mark of the complainant.

The complainant is resident of Delhi. He took loan against the vehicle from the Bank at Delhi. It is not understandable as to how the complainant would surrender the vehicle to the representative of the OP Bank at Jwalaput, Hardwar. The complainant had not given any notice to the OP Bank to take over the possession of the vehicle at Hardwar.

The aforesaid circumstances leave no doubt that surrender of the vehicle, was not peaceful and voluntarily. The representative of the OP Bank forced the complainant to put signature on the letter and took over the possession of the vehicle. The OP Bank cannot get out of its misdeed merely because the complainant did not prefer to file the criminal complaint against the Bank or its representative.


The vehicle was possessed by the OP Bank without following the due process of law and as such it amounts deficiency of service on the part of OP Bank.
It is not the case of the complainant or of the Bank that the vehicle has been sold by the Bank. However, repossession of the vehicle in the aforesaid manner has not only caused financial losses to the complainant but he has to undergo harassment and mental agony. Hence, we allow the complaint and pass the following directions to the OP Bank to comply with :

1. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for financial losses, harassment and mental agony.

2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.

3. If the amount will not be paid within 30 days then, the compensation amount will attract interest at the @ 9 % per annum from the date of passing the order till the realization of the amount.

The amount shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Otherwise, action can be taken as per provision of Section 25 and 27 of the Act.

Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per provisions of law. The file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in the Court on ……28/01/2010.

Case No.552/08

Mahender Kumar, 2094/2C, Street No.17, Prem Nagar, Delhi – 8.

…….Complainant

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051.

Also at : 19 & 20, Central Market, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi – 26.

……..Opposite Parties

CORAM : J.P. SHARMA : PRESIDENT

: S.M. MAZUMDAR : MEMBER

: DR. PREMLATA : MEMBER
O R D E R

J.P. SHARMA (PRESIDENT) :

To be brief, complainant’s case is that he got financed his car bearing Regn. No.DL-9CD-8593 manufactured in the year 2004 from OP bank for Rs.2,31,129/-. The loan was to be repaid in 59 EMIs. of Rs.4,270/-. Complainant paid five EMIs. in time but thereafter, defaulted in payment and therefore, the car was repossessed by the goonda elements of OP bank and was sold in the open market. After about 2 ½ years, complainant received a notice from the Ld. Counsel for OP bank demanding the dues of Rs.65,000/- from the complainant and complainant therefore, has approached this Forum with the present complaint.

OPs. filed reply to the complaint wherein they pleaded that complainant took a loan of Rs.2,31,129/- which was repayable in 59 instalments of Rs.4,270/-. Since contrary to the agreement entered into between the parties, complainant failed to pay the instalments of loan amount in terms of hypothecation agreement. According to OPs., complainant himself surrendered the vehicle to them. They denied that the vehicle was repossessed forcibly by them. OPs. stated that they resold the vehicle and after adjusting the resale amount in the account of the complainant sent notice to him for payment of shortfall of Rs.65,000/- in his account which in terms of hypothecation agreement, complainant was liable to pay.

Parties filed affidavits in support of their rival claims.

We have heard Sh.Sanjay Kumar- Ld. Counsel for complainant, Sh.Mayank Mahajan – Ld. Counsel for OPs., have gone through the material on record and have considered their relevant contentions.

No doubt, OPs. have claimed that they have not taken forcible possession of the vehicle and that complainant surrendered the vehicle but OPs. failed to placed on record the necessary documents prepared at the time of taking the custody of the car. Hence, in view of categorical statement of complainant that goonda of OPs. repossessed the car, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the complainant’s version. In the case reported as 1(2006) CPJ 46 (NC) Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. versus Surekha khanoji Khemnar Hon’ble National commission observed that seizure of vehicles in case of default of monthly instalments by bank’s officials without intervention of the Court was illegal. Recently Hon’ble supreme Court also expressed similar view in the case reported as 2007(3) Scale Manager ICICI Bank Vs. Prakash Kaur & ors., Hon’ble Supreme Court of India deprecated this practice of forcible possession by the muscle men of banks/financial institutions. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in the ICICI’s case (Supra) that guidelines both for lending and recovery which contemplate that no use of force or abuse is used in recovery proceedings are there but in the absence of an effective overseeing body, these abuses continue. It was further observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that banking procedures should be people friendly at the same time strict in its enforcement and educative enough to guide the public on the benefits of prudent banking and savings and at the same time, enlighten them on the pitfalls of borrowing or taking credit from institutions for various purposes, way beyond their means. Their Lordships held that merely because the Agency System is convenient to the banks and has been approved by RBI, it should not lead to lawlessness and conduct resulting in challenge to rule of law. Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that we are governed by a rule of law in the country. The recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legal means. The Banks cannot employ goondas to take possession by force.

OPs.’ seizure of complainant’s car forcibly without adopting legal methods, therefore, amounts to deficiency in service on their part. This complaint, therefore, succeeds.

As a result of what has been discussed above, we direct OPs. to adjust the cost of the car as on the date of seizure which would be arrived at by deducting 20% depreciation on the invoice value of the car. Thereafter, the balance principal amount of loan payable by the complainant plus the amount of instalments over due on the date of seizure payable by the complainant be adjusted from the net depreciated value of the vehicle to arrive at the net amount that becomes credit/debit for the complainant. OPs. shall, however, have to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- including cost of the complaint and recover the dues if any worked out against complainant only by following due process of law.

OPs. shall comply with the above mentioned order within 30 days of its receipt failing which proceedings u/s 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act may be initiated against them.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge. Thereafter, the file be consigned to the Record Room.

Consumer Complaint No.20/2008.

Date of institution : 02.02.2008.

Date of decision : 18.01.2010.

In the matter of :

Shri Dil Mohammand son of Shri Bazira, Resident of Village Aloh, Post Office Kinnu, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P.

… … … Complainant.
Versus.

The Manager, ICICI Bank, SCO-131, 1st Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, Punjab.
… … … Opposite party.


COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.


Before :-

1. Shri D. D. Sharma : President.

2. Shri Ajay Sharma : Member.

3. Mrs. Saroj Modgil : Member.



For the complainant : Shri Rajesh Malwal, Adv. vice

Shri J.K. Sharma, Advocate.

For opposite party : Ex-parte.

O R D E R

( Per Shri D.D. Sharma, President );

Complainant-Shri Dil Mohammand son of Shri Bazira, Resident of Village Aloh, Post Office Kinnu, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. in his complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party- The Manager, ICICI Bank, SCO-131, 1st Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, Punjab has alleged that he obtained loan of Rs.1,89,880/- for the purchase of tractor bearing registration No.PB-57-A-3320 by furnishing title deed of the landed property as security as per agreement No.LFHPR 00002541599, dated 10.09.2004 and he had to repay Rs.7,927/- as monthly installment, but the complainant due to marriage of his daughter defaulted in depositing two installments and the opposite party took away the tractor to Jalandhar and thereafter, the complainant received notice from the branch of opposite party on 15.06.2007 demanding Rs.1,89,880/- as full and final settlement of the loan account and thus, the complainant accordingly deposited a sum of Rs.1,89,880/- on 18.06.2007 vide receipt No.004072398545 as full and final settlement and requested the branch of opposite party to issue Non Dues Certificate in his favour. That after depositing full and final settlement i.e. more than the actual amount, the complainant has taken the said tractor back from Jalandhar and the opposite party assured to issue No Dues Certificate after receiving the same from the Head Office, but all in vain and that the complainant was surprised when he again received notices vide reference No.800, dated 07.09.2007 and subsequent reference No.Nor/1/186 Dec/2/187, dated 07.10.2007 on 22.10.2007 by demanding Rs.7,927/-, when actually the complainant has cleared all the dues including penalty and interest whatsoever and thereafter, the complainant again received letter dated 08.06.2007 from the opposite party in which the loan agreement No.LFHPR 00002541599 entered into between the parties stood terminated as on 06.06.2007 and in pursuance to the said letter, the complainant was waiting for NOC, but the complainant received false frivolous notices from the opposite party and thus, the opposite party failed to render better services to the complainant. That the complainant also issued legal notice dated 24.09.2007 to the opposite party requesting to send the No Dues Certificate by withdrawing the notice dated 07.09.2007 or any other notice, but the needful was not done by the opposite party, rather the opposite party sent two more false and frivolous notices and thus, due to act of opposite party, the complainant suffered mental harassment. The complainant has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,500/- and to issue No Dues Certificate in his favour. The complaint is duly supported by affidavit of complaint.



2. The opposite party failed to put in appearance despite various notices and hence was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.01.2010.



3. In support and to prove his contentions, the complainant relied on and tendered in evidence documents annexure C-1 to C-9 besides his affidavit annexure C-10.



4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and have perused the record of the case, carefully.



5. On close scrutiny of complaint and the documents relied on and tendered by the complainant and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the case of the complainant stands fully established and there is no rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the complainant. Document annexure C-4 is photocopy of payment receipt No.004072398545, dated 18.06.2007 issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs.1,89,880/-, which amount was payable towards full and final settlement of loan account as per letter dated 08.06.2007 of opposite party annexure C-5. It is evident from record that despite making full and final payment of the loan amount, the opposite party failed to issue No Dues Certificate thereby causing mental harassment and financial loss to the complainant. On such facts of the case, the complainant is entitled to No Dues Certificate besides compensation. Accordingly, we pass the following order;



6. The opposite party is ordered and directed to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainant within 7 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order besides compensation, which we assess at Rs.5,000/- and cost of complaint to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. In case the opposite party fails to issue No Dues Certificate within the period as directed, the complainant shall be entitled further compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- which shall also carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 02.02.2008 till realization. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Certified copy of this order, be supplied to the parties, free of cost. The file after its due completion, be consigned to Record Room.

The Concerned Officer,

ICICI BANK Loan Account Number - LIMAY00010783081

I was having a Small Ticket Personal Loan from your Bank and the Loan was settled in the month of May - 2009 and the full & final payment was also made as per the settlement letter issued by bank. It is a matter of great disappointment that today i have received a SUMMON U/s 138 from the Court of Ms. C Rashmi Kujar MM Dwarka Court, New Delhi with the hearing date of 14.12.2009.
Can you people let me know that why are you harressing us when we have not to pay any dues of the bank.

Please note - I need this matter to be resolved with in 24 hours else will be compelled to take legal action against ICICI BANK for unnecessary harressing me by serving Court Notice.

Please contact me immediately at 9210905659, 9310518600, 8010085372

Anju Saboo

C.C.No.79/2009

Between

J.Ranganatha Reddy,

S/o. J.Lakshminarayana Reddy,

Builder,

Flat No.33, R.N.RIA Avenue,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District. … Complainant



And



The General Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Credit Card Division,

5-9-2, JVL Towers, 4th Floor,

Saifabad,

Hyderabad-4. … Opposite party

This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 05.01.10 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.V.Bhaskar, counsel for the complainant and Sri.G.Rajesh Babu, counsel for the opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. G.V.RAGHAVULU, PRESIDENT
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

This complaint is filed under Sections-12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.18,281.60/- with interest at 18% per annum, to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental torture and agony and to award Rs.5,000/- as costs of the complaint to the complainant.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are :- The complainant, who has an account with opposite party under S.B.Account No.630901048000, obtained credit card facility from the opposite party under credit card No.5176537509259006 in or around November, 2004. The complainant has been utilizing the credit card and has been paying the dues by way of cheques as and when he received the credit card statements. In the month of June 2008, the complainant received credit card statement showing that an amount of Rs.9,348.05/- for the month of May 2008 is due. The complainant having decided to close the credit card paid the due amount of Rs.9,348.05/- by way of cheque on 02.06.2008 and destroyed the credit card and returned the damaged credit card to the opposite party. The concerned official of the opposite party acknowledged the receipt of the damaged credit card by phone. On 07.06.2008 the credit card section had communicated informing that the destroyed credit card was received by them. But the credit card division sent bill for Rs.8,186.47/- in the month of August 2008. Immediately, the complainant contacted the branch office of the opposite party on phone and asked them how he could use the credit card when the same was surrendered in the month of June itself. After surrendering the credit card, the complainant did not do any transaction with it. When the complainant addressed letter to the opposite party asking them to furnish the details of the credit card statement, he received statement copies from July 2008 to June 2009. An amount of Rs.18,281.60/- is shown as outstanding in the statement copy dt:28.03.2009. Taking advantage of the S.B.Account of the complainant, the opposite party debited the alleged credit card due from his account against the banking laws. The acts of opposite party clearly show unfair trade practice and deficiency of service towards the complainant. Due to their acts, the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and hardship. Further, the acts of opposite party damaged the reputation of the complainant, who is a builder and who has been the bank’s valuable customer. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party on 10.07.2009 calling upon to debit the amount of Rs.18,281.60/- and pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite party acknowledged the legal notice, but failed to comply with the demands. Hence the complaint.

3. The opposite party resisted the complaint. In the written objections filed on behalf of opposite party, while denying the material allegations made in the complaint, it is stated that the statement dt:28.05.2008 clearly shows that the complainant availed loan of Rs.16,000/- on 15.02.2007, which is repayable in 24 EMIs, and 15th EMI is billed in that statement and there was principle balance of Rs.6,749/- pending on the same. The complainant paid Rs.9,348/- on 02.06.2008 and requested for blocking of the card, and accordingly the card was blocked on 04.06.2008. The credit card was only blocked from usage, but was not closed. As per the next statement of account dt:28.06.2008, the customer last utilized the card on 28.05.2008 for an amount of Rs.3,900.84/-. The statement dt:28.06.2008 clearly shows the payment of Rs.9,348/- made by the complainant towards previous balance and closing balance of Rs.4,728.03/-, which is inclusive of usage amount of Rs.3,900.84/- and EMI amount of Rs.813.33/-. Not using the card or requesting for cancellation without clearing the total outstanding dues as on date does not entail the bank to stop levy of charges and interest. The same are continued to be levied till the time the customer pays the total amount due on his card account. The customer availed loan of Rs.16,000/- on 15.02.2007, which is repayable in 24 EMIs at Rs.813.33/- per month. The tenure of the EMIs is from 15.03.2007 to 15.02.2009. The customer stopped making payments from June 2008 by unilateral claiming to have closed the card without fully paying the loan amounts and usage amounts on the card. The complainant is receiving statements regularly and the entries clearly show the EMIs. The complainant willfully suppressed the facts and filed the complaint with a mala fide intention to deprive the bank of its legally legitimate dues. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. As the complainant failed to clear the dues from June 2008, interest and other charges were added to the account and the outstanding amount is increased to Rs.18,281.60/- in January, 2009. Thereafter, the account was classified as NPA and outstanding was freezed thereon without any increase. The opposite party issued conciliation notice through their advocates requesting the complainant to attend the conciliation meeting on 21.11.2008 at Tirupati office, but he failed to respond to the notice inspite of receipt of the same. As a last resort, the opposite party has marked a lien from the S.B.Account of the complainant on 20.04.2009 and issued lien intimation letter on 21.04.2009. As the complainant failed to respond to the lien intimation letter, the opposite party was forced to debit the S.B.Account of complainant on 27.04.2009 for an amount of Rs.18,205.40/-. The opposite party has a statutory right under the Indian Contract Act to put a lien on customer’s bank account with respect to the unpaid outstanding dues payable by such customer and set off the available balance against the dues payable in the event of refusal to pay the dues. The right of lien and debit of the accounts towards the dues of the cards / loans from the accounts of customers towards the dues is approved as per the directions of APEX Court and also RBI. The complaint is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is bunch of credit card statements, 4 in number, issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dt:10.07.2009 got issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgement card of opposite party for Ex.A2 notice. Ex.A4 is computerized statement of account of complainant dt:09.07.2009.

5. In support of the case set up in the written objections, the Manager / Legal and Authorized Special Power of Attorney holder of opposite party filed his affidavit. The opposite party also got marked Exs.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is xerox copy of letter dt:21.04.2009 addressed by the opposite party to the complainant with xerox copy of courier receipt. Ex.B2 is bunch of credit card statements, 24 in number, for the period from 28.05.2007 to 28.04.2009. Ex.B3 is copy of terms and conditions applicable to credit card facilities.

6. On behalf of the complainant and opposite party written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel of both sides.

7. On the basis of pleadings of both sides, the points that arise for consideration are:-

(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?

(iii) To what result?

8. Point No.(i):- The brief facts of the case are:- The complainant obtained credit card facility from the opposite party in November, 2004 and has been using the same since then. The complainant received credit card statement dt:29.05.2008 showing the total amount due as Rs.9,348.05/-. The complainant paid the said amount Rs.9,348/- through cheque dt:02.06.2008 and destroyed the credit card and returned the same to the opposite party branch office at Tirupati. The opposite party blocked the usage of the credit card on 04.06.2008 and intimated to the complainant about receipt of destroyed card. The opposite party sent credit card statement dt:29.08.2008 showing the total amount due as Rs.8,186.47/-. The complainant received credit card statement dt:28.03.2009 from the opposite party showing that a total amount of Rs.18,281.60/- is due from him. The opposite party addressed Ex.B1 letter dt:21.04.2009 to the complainant requesting him to pay the amount of Rs.18,281.60/- immediately failing which they would be constrained to exercise its right to debit his savings bank account with their branch office at Tirupati. The opposite party on 27.04.2009 debited an amount of Rs.18,205.40/- which was available in the S.B.Account of the complainant on that date. The complainant on 10.07.2009 got issued the original of Ex.A2 legal notice demanding the opposite party to pay the debited amount of Rs.18,281.60/- and damages of Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite party received the notice. As there was no response from the opposite party, the complainant filed the complaint on 17.08.2009.

9. The case of the complainant is that he cleared the entire dues by paying Rs.9,348.05/- on 02.06.2008, that the opposite party illegally sent credit card statement dt:29.08.2008 showing the amount due as Rs.8,186.47/- and credit card statement dt:28.03.2009 showing the amount due as Rs.18,281.60/- and that the acts of opposite party in debiting an amount of Rs.18,281.60/- from his S.B.Account amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

10. The case of the opposite party is that the complainant availed loan of Rs.16,000/- on 15.02.2007 and has to repay the same in 24 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.813.33/- from 15.03.2007 to 15.02.2009, that the credit card statement dt:28.06.2008 shows the closing balance as Rs.4,728.03/-, which includes the usage amount of Rs.3,900.84/- by the complainant on 28.05.2008 and EMI amount of Rs.813.33/-, and that subsequently the complainant inspite of receipt of credit card statements failed to pay the amount due. Their further case is that they blocked only usage of the credit card, that they are entitled to levy of charges and interest on the outstanding dues and that as per the terms and conditions applicable to credit card facility, they exercised their right to lien and debited the S.B.Account of the complainant after giving notice to the complainant.

11. The credit card statement dt:29.05.2008, which the complainant filed, shows that an amount of Rs.123.19/- towards EMI interest and an amount of Rs.690.14/- towards EMI principle for 15/24, totaling Rs.813.33/-, towards 15th installment out of 24 installments are debited to the account of the complainant. It further shows that the original amount taken is Rs.16,000/- on 15.02.2007 and the balance is Rs.6,749/-. The opposite party filed copies of credit card statements from 28.05.2007 to 28.04.2009. The complainant filed credit card statements dt:29.08.2008 and 28.05.2009. The complainant did not file the credit card statements from 28.06.2008 to 28.04.2009. The complainant only paid the closing balance of Rs.9,348.05/- on 02.06.2008. The credit card statement dt:28.06.2008 shows that on 28.05.2008 the complainant utilized the credit card for Rs.3,900.84/-. The statement further shows the 16th EMI interest and principle. It also shows the payment of Rs.9,348/- made by the complainant on 02.06.2008. The credit card statements dt:28.06.2008, 29.07.2008, 28.08.2008, 28.09.2008, 28.10.2008, 28.11.2008, 28.12.2008, 28.01.2009, 28.02.2009, 28.03.2009 and 28.04.2009 show the outstanding dues, which include 16 to 24 EMIs. It is not the case of the complainant that he did not receive the other credit card statements. It is also not the case of the complainant that he did not receive Ex.B1 notice issued by the opposite party. Ex.B2 terms and conditions applicable to and regulate the provision of credit card facilities show that the opposite party got right to lien on the complainant’s S.B.Account with their branch at Tirupati. After issuing the notice to the complainant intimating their right of lien, the opposite party debited the S.B.Account of the complainant. As submitted by the counsel for the opposite party, the complainant by suppressing the facts approached this Forum with unclean hands.

12. For the above reasons, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered against the complainant.

13. Point No.(ii):- In view of our finding on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. This point is accordingly answered.

13. Point No.(iii):- In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/255

Stanely
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

ICICI Bank Ltd
...........Respondent(s)BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq
2. P.P.Shymaladevi
3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

ORDER

Date of filing : 20-11-2008

Date of order : 12-01-2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC. No. 255/08 Dated this, the 12th day of January 2010

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER

P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER



Stanley,

S/o.George, H.No.5/806,

Uliyathada, Po.Madhur, } Complainant

Kasaragod.

(Adv.A.Balakrishnan Nair, Kasaragod)

1. I.C.I.C.I.Bank Ltd, Emgee Squre, } Opposite parties

M.G.Road, Cochin.

(Adv. Rajesh .V.Nair Thalasseri,Adv Udayakumar, Kasaragod)

2. Rahul, Agent ICICI Bank,

Office, Opposite I.B.P. Petrol Bunk,

Nullipady, Kasaragod.

O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

The skeletal facts of the complaint are as follows:

Complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No. KL-14/F 7770. He availed a loan from opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 who is the collecting agent of opposite party No.1. Since complainant committed some default in the monthly EMI payments opposite party illegally repossessed the vehicle in June 2008. On search made by the complainant he could see his well maintained vehicle parked by the opposite party in an open yard exposed to rain, heat, dust. The vehicle was having a market value of Rs.1,10,000/- at the time of seizure by opposite party No.1. The opposite parties did not assess the value of the vehicle at the time of re-possession. Though complainant approached opposite party several times to get back the vehicle, opposite party turned down on his request. The complainant also submitted 25 blank cheque leaves of Catholic Syrian bank, Kasaragod Branch to opposite party No.1 while availing the loan.

2. The complainant altogether remitted Rs.74,993/-towards the loan account out of the total loan amount of Rs.1,05,000/-. Hence the complaint for an order to refund the amount Rs.74,993/- that he paid towards instalments and a Rs.10,000/- by way of damages and cost of the proceedings.

3. According to opposite party No.1 the total amount availed by the complainant was Rs.1,04,000/- and complainant paid 19 instalments of Rs.3947/-each. Thereafter he willfully defaulted the payment of the loan. Though notice was issued to him to repay the amount, complainant failed to pay the amount. Hence the vehicle was repossessed. It was not forcibly repossessed. The market value of the vehicle as shown by the complainant is not correct. He has not maintained the vehicle properly. In the hypothecation agreement complainant agreed to repossess the vehicle in case the instalments were defaulted. The opposite parties has not done anything to repossess the vehicle. As on 28-11-2008 the complainant is liable to pay Rs.67470/- to opposite parties and though it was informed to the complainant, he failed to pay the amount which is against the contract entered by the complainant. The complainant can pay the entire loan balance and take back the vehicle. The complainant is not entitled to get back the amount he paid towards the loan i.e. Rs.74,993/-. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Complainant filed an affidavit as PW1 in lieu of oral evidence. Ext.A1 series receipts marked. On the part of opposite parties Ext.B1 marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant.

5. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 illegally repossessed the vehicle in June 2008 and at the time of re-possession it would have cost Rs.1,10,000/- in the market. Since the opposite party is kept the vehicle in an open yard exposed to sun light, heat, dust and rain the value of the vehicle is diminished and became worthless. Hence prays for the return of Rs.74,993/- he paid towards the loan with compensation. Ext.A1 series (18 Nos) shows that complainant had remitted 19 instalments of Rs.3947/- each totalling Rs.74,993/-.

6. The repossession of the vehicle through unlawful means is not justifiable at any circumstances. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a recent decision reported in 2009 CTJ 840 (CP)(NCDRC) in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. V. Indrason Choubey and Others has held as follows:

“Many financiers/banks are in race for giving loan for purchase of vehicles and other articles. After giving loan and taking interest in advance the polite behaviour charges because of the documents signed by the borrowers on dotted lines. On occasions, the borrowers suffer harassment, torture or even abuses at the hands of musclemen of the lenders. Let the rule of law prevail and not that of jungle where might is right.”

7. While rendering the above judgment the Hon’ble NCDRC has relied on the decisions of it’s earlier judgment in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd V. S. Vijayalaxmi reported in 2007 CTJ 1145(CP) and also on the decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court in ICICI Bank V. Praksh Kaur & Others reported in (2007)2SCC 871 in the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under

“Now the bank is the aggressor and the public is the victim. The first step to recover of the money due is through the so-called recovery/collection agents. A very dignified term used for paid recovery agents who are individuals and independent contractors hired by the banks both to trace the defaulters and to physically mentally and emotionally torture and force them into submitting their dues.

A man’s self-respect, stature in society are immaterial to the agent who is only primed at recovery. This is the modernized version of Shylock’s pound of flesh. No explanation is given regarding the interest charge and the bank takes cover under the guise of the holders of the card or loan having signed the agreement whose fine print is never read or explained to the owner.”



8. Applying the dictums laid down in the instant case it is clear that the opposite party No.1 repossessed the vehicle illegally and it amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant not only lost his money that he paid in instalments but also the vehicle. This is nothing but an unjust enrichment of opposite party at the expenses of complainant.

9. The complainant is therefore entitled to get back the instalments he paid to the opposite parties i.e. Rs.74,993/-.

In the result complaint is allowed and opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs.74,993/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs.3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum for R$s.74,993/- from the date of complaint till payment.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/218

K.Subrahmanian, Kottayi House, P.O.Kanool,(Via)Dharmasala
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Manager, ICIC Bank,Shafir Complex, RAPJ Forth Floor, Kannur Road, Kozhikode.1
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. GOPALAN.K
2. JESSY.M.D
3. PREETHAKUMARI.K.P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member

Dated this, the 27th day of January 2010

CC.218/2008

Subrahamannian.K.

Kottayi House,

P.O.Kanool,(Via)Dharmasala
(Rep. by Adv.K.K.Purushothaman Nambiar) Complainant

Manager,

ICICI Bank,

Shaffir Complex,

R.A.P.J. IVth Floor,

Kannur Road,

Kozhikode.

(Rep. by Adv.Rajesh V Nair) Opposite party

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to return back the goods vehicle having registration NO.KL.592531 along with 36 blank cheque leaves with Rs.1, 00,000/- as compensation.

The case of the complainant is that he is a handicapped having lack of eye sight and for his livelihood he has taken Rs.50, 000/- as loan from opposite party and purchased a goods vehicle having No.KL.592531. At the time of purchase the opposite party compelled the complainant to put his signature in agreements and some other papers and received 36 blank cheque leaves. The complainant has already paid Rs.60000/- towards the loan amount. But the opposite party has forcibly repossessed the vehicle by saying that the complainant had defaulted the payment. The complainant is using the above vehicle for transporting and selling soda for his livelihood. So due to repossession of the vehicle by opposite party, the complainant was not in a position to meet his livelihood and he has suffered lot of mental agony and financial loss. The opposite party has shown deficiency in service and hence the complainant approached the opposite party for returning the cheques and the vehicle. But the opposite party is not ready to do so. Hence this complaint.

Upon receiving the notice from the Forum the opposite party appeared through Adv.Rajesh V Nair and filed their version. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had availed a loan from opposite party by executing loan cum-hypothecation agreement in favour of the bank. The loan amount availed by the complainant is Rs.1,10,000/- and out of which he has repaid only 18 installments at the rate of Rs.3651/- as E.M.I. and thereafter defaulted willfully and hence notice was issued to the complainant for repayment and even after notice he failed to pay the amount. As a result the vehicle was repossessed on 3.10.08 and the complainant has not objected the repossession. The bank has repossessed the vehicle as per the hypothecation agreement given by the complainant that the vehicle will be repossessed in default of payment. So the opposite party has not shown any deficiency of services or unfair trade practice and hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to 3 and B1.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The opposite party admits that the complainant had availed a loan from him. The opposite party contended that the complainant had availed a loan amount of Rs.101000/- produced ext.B1 which is a computer print out the statement of account with respect to the Agreement No.LWKNR 00008240924. But the complainant deposed that “Loan No.LWKNR 00008240924 BsW¶p ]d-ªm Adn-bn-Ã. More over the opposite party admitted that the complainant had executed an H.P agreement with them. But he has not produced the same before the Forum to prove that the complainant has availed Rs.101000/- as loan. The complainant deposed before the Forum that “Bank Â\n¶p50, 000/-cq]-bmWv loan FSp-¯Xv . The Ext.B1 cannot give much weightage since it was kept by the opposite party as per their whims and fancies. But it is also true that the complainant has not produced document to prove that he has availed Rs.50, 000/-. He has produce Ext.A1 series receipts which are 6 in numbers and through which he has paid 34.490/-. So even if he had taken Rs.50000/- as loan, he had defaulted in payment of the loan. But there is no document before us to show the date of loan, the EMI, what is the balance to be paid by the complainant. But as per ext. B1 it is seen that Rs.84, 085/- was adjusted towards the due. But the complainant failed to prove that what is the actual amount to be paid by him to the opposite party. So we are not in a position to come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party by repossessing the vehicle. More over the opposite party kept mum about the cheque leaves. But going through the Ext.B1 it is seen that some cheques were bounced. So with respect to the cheuqe leaf also we are in darkness. So the complainant failed to prove his case beyond doubt and hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

COMPLAINT NO.2428 OF 2009

M/s Pannaga Decorators,

No.17, 21st Main Road,

“T” Block, Behind Manjunatha

Condiments, Girinagar,

Bangalore – 560 085.

Repted by Srinivas, Proprietor.

…. Complainant.

V/s

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Bull Temple Road,

Chamarajpet,

Bangalore – 560 010.

Represented by its

Branch Manager.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-

This complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- from the Opposite Party on the following grounds:-
2. The complainant who is doing business in flower decoration has an account bearing No.625405014691 with Opposite Party Bank. In the course of business the Bank had returned two cheques one for Rs.35,800/- favouring V.K.Arora and another for Rs.7,500/- favouring Ramesh. Though there was sufficient balance of Rs.44,996-04 paise in the account as on 26/08/2009 the bank dishonored the two payments issued by the complainant when presented by the drawee and debited Rs.386/- on 25/08/2009 and Rs.386/- on 26/08/2009 towards Bank charges for return of the two cheques/Ecs. The act of the Bank is highly illegal, unlawful and against the guidelines of the RBI and the same caused irreparable damage to the reputation of the complainant resulting in deficiency in service. As a result of return of cheques, the suppliers are demanding payment on cash and carry basis and as such the complainant is put untold hardship. He issued legal notice dated 28/08/2009 calling upon the Opposite Party to pay damages of Rs.4,50,000/- towards loss of reputation, mental agony and sufferings. In spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party failed to comply with the demand. Hence, the complaint.

3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and is misusing and abusing the process having committed breach of the contract. The complainant is having an account with Opposite Party Bank as stated in Para-4 of the complaint and Rs.386/- was debited to his account on 25/08/2009 and another sum of Rs.386/- was debited on 26/08/2009 towards Bank charges for return of two cheques. The other allegations in Para-4 of the complaint are false and far from truth. The complainant had availed credit card bearing No.4132897535661005 from the Opposite Party Bank and utilized the credit card to his own benefit. But the complainant failed to pay the outstanding amount in his credit card account. Several demands and requests to make payment of the outstanding dues went in vain. As on 15/07/2009 there was outstanding balance of Rs.40,891-71 paise in the credit card account of the complainant. Since the complainant committed breach of contractual obligations and committed default in paying the outstanding dues, the bank exercised its right under law and proceeded for lien marking the bank account of the complainant. Accordingly a lien has been marked towards unpaid outstanding due on Rs.40,891-71 paise on the account of the complainant and the same has been intimated to the complainant on 15/07/2009. The Bank is well within its right to enforce the lien and the same has been intimated in the letter dated 15/07/2009. Knowing fully well that he has defaulted in paying the outstanding dues in his credit card account and that the account has been lien marked towards unpaid outstanding dues, a false complaint is filed suppressing material facts. Since the complainant had not maintained sufficient balance in his account, the cheques issued by the complainant were returned unpaid. Therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the bank as alleged by the complainant. The complainant had issued legal notice claiming damages of Rs.20,00,000/- and not Rs.4,00,000/- as stated in the complaint. There are no bona-fide to claim Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and there is no cause of action to file the complaint. On these grounds, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. In support of the respective contentions both parties have filed their affidavits and have produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments on both side.
5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-


-:REASONS:-

7. The fact that the complainant has his account with the Opposite Party Bank and that two cheques issued by the complainant were returned unclear is admitted. It is the contention of the Opposite Party that the complainant had availed credit card and had failed to pay the amount outstanding in his credit card account, therefore by the letter 15/07/2009 the amount available in the account of the complainant has been lien marked for adjustment towards the amount due in his credit card account and therefore for want of sufficient funds in the account, the two cheques issued by the complainant were dishonored. Along with the version, the Opposite Party has produced the copy of the letter dated 15/07/2009 addressed to the complainant. This letter is with regard to the credit card account of the complainant and it is clearly mentioned that since the complainant failed to clear the outstanding dues in his credit card account, the bank has exercised the right of banker’s lien and has put lien on the S.B.Account of the complainant towards the unpaid credit card dues. The complainant has suppressed the fact that he had availed the credit card facility from the Opposite Party Bank and by the letter dated 15/07/2009 the Bank had exercised its right of lien over the amount availed in his S.B.Account. From the copies of the statement pertaining to the credit card account of the complainant it is clear that the complainant had committed default in making payment towards the amount due in his credit card account. By the letter dated 15/07/2009 the Bank marked lien or charge on the amount available in the S.B. Account of the complainant for adjustment towards the amount due in his credit card account. Thereby the complainant was not permitted to withdraw the amount available in his S.B. Account though as on 15/07/2009 the amount available in the S.B.Account of the complainant was not adjusted towards the outstanding dues in the credit card account of the complainant. As per the letter dated 15/07/2009 a sum of Rs.40,891-79 paise was due in the credit card account of the complainant. When the Bank marked lien over that amount then there remained no balance in the S.B.Account of the complainant to honor the two cheques issued by the complainant in August-2009 because the balance available in the S.B.Account of the complainant as on 27/08/2009 was only Rs.44,996/-. It is in those circumstances the bank had no option but to dishonour the two cheques issued by the complainant in August-2009. Along with the application dated 20/01/2010 the complainant produced the letter dated 26/10/2009 addressed to him by the Bank informing that in exercise of Banker’s lien they have debited the S.B.Account of the complainant for Rs.40,538-81 paise towards the amount due in the credit card account of the complainant. Therefore though the Bank marked lien on the amount available in the S.B.Account of the complainant on 15/07/2009, it debited the amount towards the amount due in the credit card account of the complainant only on 26/10/2009. Though the Bank gave two months time from 15/07/2009 for the complainant to make payment of the amount due on the credit card account, he failed to clear the balance outstanding and therefore the Bank debited the amount form the S.B.Account of the complainant. In these circumstances, when the Bank exercised its lien on the amount available in the S.B.Account of the complainant and therefore dishonored the cheques for want of sufficient funds, the same will not amount to deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. As such we hold that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint. The above view also finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, in the case of NARAYAN PRADHAN V. SYNDICATE BANK reported in I (2009) CPJ 217 on which the learned counsel for the Opposite Party relied upon. In the decision it is held that the Bank is justified in withholding and setting of money in scheme towards outstanding loan and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. For the reason stated above we hold that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-

1. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th Day of JANUARY 2010

Dear Anju,

We regret the inconvenience caused.
We'll contact you and work to address your issue at the earliest.

Regards,
ICICI Customer Service Team.

Originally Posted by Anju Saboo.

The Concerned Officer,

ICICI BANK Loan Account Number - LIMAY00010783081

I was having a Small Ticket Personal Loan from your Bank and the Loan was settled in the month of May - 2009 and the full & final payment was also made as per the settlement letter issued by bank. It is a matter of great disappointment that today i have received a SUMMON U/s 138 from the Court of Ms. C Rashmi Kujar MM Dwarka Court, New Delhi with the hearing date of 14.12.2009.
Can you people let me know that why are you harressing us when we have not to pay any dues of the bank.

Please note - I need this matter to be resolved with in 24 hours else will be compelled to take legal action against ICICI BANK for unnecessary harressing me by serving Court Notice.

Please contact me immediately at 9210905659, 9310518600, 8010085372

Anju Saboo