Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 396
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: ICICI Bank

  1. #31
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default ICICI Bank

    The complainant had purchased an Opel Corsa by availing finance from the opposite party. The opposite party had obtained an endorsement in the registeration certificate of the vehicle on which the loan was taken. Opposite party had also retained the second key of the same vehicle with them. Opposite party had promised to return the second key on the complete remittance of the loan amount. The complainant had paid all the monthly instalments without any default.
    After the completion of the payment complainant approached the opposite party to cancel the financier’s higher purchase endorsement on the registeration certificate of the vehicle and also to take back the second key from the opposite party. But the opposite party failed to return the second key. The complainant repeatedly demanded but the opposite party was unable to give back the second key. The complainant, after enquiry came to know that the second key was untraceable. The only safe alternate was for him to make arrangements to get the entire lock system replaced. The complainant cannot use his vehicle safely because of the loss of the second key, fearing that the second key might be in the hands of some other person who would make use and take away complainant’s vehicle. The complainant had to suffer these inconveniences and discomforts due to the deficiency of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.



    Opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. The opposite party admits the fact that the complainant had availed a higher purchase loan for purchasing a car. Opposite party denies that the keys of the complainant’s vehicle was kept in opposite party’s custody. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any relief.

    The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the petition?



    Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked on complainant’s side. There was no evidence neither oral nor documental from the side of opposite party, even though opposite party was given ample time. On 27-1-09 opposite party prayed time for evidence. It was posted to 13-2-09. Again opposite party sought time. For the next posting on 13-3-09 opposite party was absent. Opposite party was given one more chance and on 21-4-09 as the opposite party was absent, opposite party was set exparte.



    The complainant’s case is that he had availed a loan from the opposite party. Opposite party had retained the duplicate key and agreed to return back the key on completion of the remittance of the loan amount. But the opposite party failed to give back the duplicate key. The complainant had repeatedly requested for the second key fearing that the duplicate key would have fallen in the hands of some persons who might misuse and take away the complainant’s vehicle or use the complainant’s vehicle for some illegal purpose. The complainant had suffered mental agony because of the negligence of opposite party. In our opinion the complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the petition.



    In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2500/- charge of replacing the lock system along with a compensation of Rs.1000/- for the inconveniences suffered and also a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

  2. #32
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default ICICI Bank

    The petitioner in this case filed the petition alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that they had availed the service of the opposite parties by receiving the equipments to process the credit cards to the complainant. It was agreed upon by both parties that the credit card holders of the opposite party will be given the facility of paying the amount for purchase through the credit card in the first opposite party’s account and the first opposite party in turn, credit the same amount to the complainant’s account. The opposite party failed to credit the amount due to the complainant on account of the purchase made by the cardholders. The complainant informed this matter to the first opposite party. Even through the first opposite party agreed to credit these amounts to the account of the complainant they failed to do so. Complainant alleges that deficiency in service has occurred on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant also alleges unfair trade practice has been done by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.



    Even in the first instance notice was issued only to the complainant for hearing on the maintainability issue, as the complainant is Meezan Jewelers Ltd. represented by its Managing Director. Forum had heard the complainant’s side regarding the maintainability of this petition in this Forum. The issue was whether the complainant will come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has convinced the Forum that opposite parties had supplied the equipments to process credit cards to the complainant. It is true that complainant is doing business but the service given to the complainant was deficient. The equipment provided by the opposite party was defective. Complainant had requested the opposite party to rectify the defects and credit the amount due to the complainant in the account of the complainant. Even though opposite party agreed to do so they have not done which is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainant thus convinced the Forum that this petition will lie in this Court. Notice was issued to opposite parties on 11-11-08. After two posting on 16-1-09 notice to opposite parties-2 and 3 was served acknowledgement received. But they did not appear in Court. Again the case was posted to 23-1-09 opposite parties were not present. The case was posted to 6-2-09 as the notice to opposite party-1 has not been returned. On 6-2-09 complainant filed affidavit. On that date opposite party-1 proposed to appear. But opposite party-2 and 3 were absent. One more chance was given to opposite party-1 but they did not file the version. In that instance the next posting date after 5 postings opposite parties were called absent and set exparte.



    The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on complainant’s side. From the evidence and exhibits it has come out that on 16-6-05, a customer had bought gold from the complainant for which the opposite parties’ credit card was used the, amount was Rs.2081/- which was not credited in the account of the complainant. The same mistakes had happened on 23-6-05 for an amount of Rs.1851/-, on 25-6-05 for an amount of Rs.5116/- altogether a total of Rs.9048/- was not accounted in the complainant’s account. This matter was informed to the opposite party but they did not respond in any manner. The Forum is of the opinion that the act of the opposite party was negligent and deficient in service. The amount from the customers will surely go in the account of the opposite party. This amount was the actual payment to be made to the complainant. The opposite party has received money due to the complainants and retained the amount, which was to be credited in the account of the complainant. This is a sort of unfair trade practice. Therefore the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.9048/- with 12% interest.



    In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.9048/- with 12% interest from 28-8-08 that is date of filing of the petition till realisation and a compensation of Rs.1000/- along with a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

  3. #33
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default ICICI Bank

    Dr. S. Periasamy, M.D., Retd

    Professor of Medicine and Senior

    Civil surgeon,

    Stanley Medical College &

    Government Stanley Hospital,

    Chennai – 600 001. Complainant

    Vs.

    ICICI Bank

    P.B.No. 1610, Dare House Annexe,

    No.44, Moore Street,

    Chennai – 600 001. Opposite Party

    Date of complaint 18.02.2009.

    M/S. A.L. Namasivayam Counsel for the complainant


    Ex-party Opposite Party

    O R D E R

    The complainant had personal loan account with the opposite party and he was regular in payment of loan amount. The complainant handed over certain number of blank cheques to avail the loan facility with the opposite party. The complainant issued a cheque for Rs.15,000/-drawn on Indian Overseas Bank dated 5.1.2009 for the loan amount of Rs. 14,359/-. The cheque has been cleared in his Indian Overseas Bank account Thiruvottiyur Marker Branch and the amount has been credited towards the personal loan account of the complainant.

    But the opposite party informed the complainant that the cheque for Rs.14,359/- was bounced and asked the complainant to remit the amount immediately. The complainant informed that the amount was debited from his Indian Overseas Bank account However the opposite party informed the complainant that the cheque has been bounced Since no proper reply was given with regard to the clearance of cheque dated 5.1.2009 the opposite party committed deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

    2.The Opposite party even after the receipt of notice did not attend the forum. Hence the opposite party was set ex parte.

    3. Proof Affidavit was filed by the complainant. Ex.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant.

    4. The points that arose for considerations are:

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

    2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    5. Point No:1

    The complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 22,500/- from the opposite party in 2006 and was regular in payment of equated monthly instalment. In order to pay a monthly instalment he issued a cheque for Rs. 15,000/- drawn on IOB Thiruvottiyur Market Branch dated on 5.1.2009. for Rs. 15,000/- and also deposited certain blank cheques to avail the loan with the opposite party Though the cheque was cleared and the amount was credited in the loan account of the complainant, the opposite party informed him that the cheque was bounced and asked him pay the instalment amount the

    complainant verified with the IOB Thiruvottiyur Marker Branch and found that the cheque issued by him dated 5.1.2009 was cleared and the amount wad credited in the loan account of the opposite party. But the opposite party has insisted payment of the loan amount on the ground that the cheuqe issued by the complainant was bounced. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 5.2.2009. Ex. A3 is the copy of the notice. The opposite party was informed that the loan amount was not credited in the loan account of the complainant.

    Though the complaint issued a cheque for Rs. 15,000/- on 5.1.2009. The opposite party did not reply for the same. The opposite party neither appeared before this forum nor filed any version denying the averments of the complaint. In the absence of any contra evidence the averments of the complaint has to be accepted. Accordingly accepting the case of the complainant we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

    6. Point No:2

    In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed not to fill any of the blank cheques issued by the complainant till the dispute is resolved. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. The amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

  4. #34
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default ICICI Bank Limited

    Satinder Singh Sobti Prop. M/s Isher Singh Sobti & Sons Filling Station, Ladhowal NH-I, Ludhiana.
    Versus

    ICICI Bank Limited, SCO-137, Feroze @@@@hi Market, Ferozepur road, Ludhiana-141001. Ph.No.0161-5014141.


    1- Complainant is operating Filling Station at Ladhowal, Ludhiana. Officer of opposite party visited him and offered installation of credit card machine. Request was conceded and consequently, issued a cheque of Rs.5000/- dated 10.4.2006 drawn on in favour of opposite party bank, required to be mandatory for opening of a current account, in order to get installed credit card machine, qua which, agreement was signed with opposite party. On 28.2.2008, moved application to opposite party, to refund whole of the amount with interest, because they have not installed credit card machine. After that notice, opposite party sent message dated 26.7.208 on his mobile, claiming Rs.870.79 upto June, 2008, as charges of his current account and that the same will be debited between 26th July, 2008 to 28th July, 2008. He claimed in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that Rs.5000/- was given to opposite party for installation of credit card machine and for none other purpose. Hence, opposite party has breached the agreement and not installed the credit card machine and also not returned Rs.5000/-, which be returned to him with interest and costs.

    2- Opposite party did not contest the complaint and as such, is being proceeded exparte.

    3- In exparte evidence, complainant tendered own afidavit and copy of agreement Ex.C1. Stood heard in person.

    4- From exparte evidence of the complainant, it is established that he agreed to get credit card machine installed at his petrol pump, from opposite party, who consequently, required him to open current account, by depositing Rs.5000/-. That amount was paid through cheque dated 10.4.2006. But the credit card machine wasn’t installed at his station. The current account consequently, was opened by him, to have installed credit card machine and not for any other purpose, to do any business with opposite party. Therefore, by retaining his amount and not refunding it, would amount to deficiency in service on part of opposite party. Consequently, we allow the complaint and as a result, pass exparte order, directing opposite party to refund Rs.5000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment. In peculiar circumstances of the case, no order as to costs and compensation. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of order

  5. #35
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default ICICI Bank Ltd

    Harish Garg S/o Sh. Darshan Garg, R/o House No. 331, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Model Town, Bathinda.

    Versus

    1. ICICI Bank Ltd., Bibiwala Road, Opposite Clock Tower, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.

    2. ICICI Bank Ltd., “Landmark”, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007(Gujarat) through its CEO.

    1.

    Complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short called the 'Act') with the allegations that the complainant is holder of Account No. 016301517441 with opposite party No.1. He received messages from the opposite parties to get an insurance policy for himself and that no extra charges will be deducted from his account. He relying upon the promise made by the opposite parties, accepted their request but the opposite parties never sent him details of any policy/cover note etc.

    He received a letter dated 6.1.2009 from opposite parties whereby he was informed that an amount of Rs. 9,264.66 is being deducted from his account and when he asked for the details, they refused to give any information and asked him to contact their Consumer Cell on mobile No. 9815558000. He tried to contact the consumer service of the opposite parties on the mobile number given above, but that number did not respond. Due to this act and conduct of the opposite parties, he suffered financial loss and also underwent mental agony, tension and unnecessary torture. He has prayed for the refund of Rs. 9,264/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, inconvenience etc. and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
    2.

    Opposite parties despite service, did not appear to contest the claim and therefore, they have been proceeded against exparte.
    3.

    Complainant led exparte evidence. He filed his own affidavit Ex.C.1, photocopy of letter dated 6.1.2009 he received from opposite parties Ex.C.2 and photocopy of his statement of account with the opposite parties Ex.C.3.
    4.

    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record of the case very carefully.
    5.

    Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant urged that he has given his consent for his insurance policy, but opposite parties failed to deliver him with any document concerning his insurance or cover note etc. They did not accept letter Ex.C.2. Opposite parties did not supply any information to the complainant despite repeatedly asking them to furnish the details of his insurance policy. The learned counsel has urged that the opposite parties have deducted an amount of Rs. 9,264.66 from the account of the complainant without furnishing any details of the insurance policy. Therefore, the opposite parties are guilty of rendering deficient service and causing unnecessary mental agony, tension and forcing the complainant to file the present complaint for his redressal.
    6.

    We have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the complainant. After going through the entire record of the case, it is an admitted fact as is evident from the averments made in para No. 2 of the complaint that the complainant gave his consent for his insurance policy and he accepted the proposal of the opposite parties. Once the complainant accepts the proposal of the opposite parties for his own insurance, he cannot agitate for non payment of the premium amount except his oral version that he repeatedly asked the opposite parties to furnish his details of insurance policy.

    There is no documentary proof on t he record that he infact made sincere and true efforts to collect the documents of his insurance policy. It is not clear either from the averments made in the complaint or any document on the record as to whether infact an amount of Rs. 9,264.66 was deducted from account No.016301517441 of the complainant for the reason that account statement Ex.C.3 placed on the record by the complainant pertains to the period 1.7.2008 to 3.9.2008 which reveals a balance of Rs.10,160.66 but latest accounts statement showing any amount deducted from the account of the complainant is not placed on the record. Unless the complainant proves that infact an amount of Rs. 9,264.66 was deducted on a specific date by opposite parties from his account, he cannot be allowed any relief for refund simply because letter Ex.C.2 has been received by the complainant, is not sufficient for him to approach this Forum without exhausting his available remedies if he had consented for his insurance policy as per the proposal of the opposite parties.

    The amount of Rs. 9,264.66 becomes legally due to the opposite parties and it is a kind of recoverable dues and opposite parties cannot be restrained from realizing the amount due under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as is apparent from the letter Ex.C.2 placed on the record by the complainant himself.
    7.

    Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances as referred to here-in-above, the complaint is without any merit and therefore, stand dismissed.

  6. #36
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default ICICI Bank

    K.A.Abdul Jaleel,

    S/o Mohammed Kunhi,

    Karippody Villa, Kottikulam, : Complainant

    Pallikkara, Bekal Po.

    The Manager,

    ICICI Bank Ltd, Kannur Branch. : Opposite party


    ORDER

    The complainant K.N.Abdul Jaleel approached the Forum for return of his vehicle from opposite party alleging that the opposite party illegally re-possessed his vehicle. The facts of the case is that the complainant had purchased a brand new Chervolet Optra - ,bearing Reg.No.KL14F/1199 as per the loan agreement(No.LAKNR 00003829078) entered with ICICI Bank, Kannur Branch. The value of the vehicle was Rs.9,00,000/- and the loan availed was Rs.7,30,000/-. As per the terms of agreement he has to pay Rs.17,395/-each in 48 monthly instalments from 7/6/2005 onwards. Towards the collection of instalmenta through Bank the opposite party had obtained 48 signed cheque leaves and out of which 3 cheques encashed and the remaining 45 cheque leaves are with the opposite party. On 28/11/2005 the complainant parked the vehicle at M.G.Road Kasaragod , the agents of opposite party forcefully took the car and they told the complainant to contact the opposite party. On 29/11/05 he received a telegram from the opposite party informing that they have re-possessed the vehicle and requested to contact the opposite party. The complainant contacted personally and the Manager ICICI Bank Calicut Branch have agreed to return the vehicle but postponed the same on one pretext or other. Ultimately on 15/12/2005 the complainant was served with the notice requesting him to pay the entire amount of loan it was also stated that otherwise they will sell the vehicle. Hence the complaint is filed for necessary relief.

    2. The opposite party, ICICI Bank served with notice and appeared through their counsel and filed version. The opposite party denied all the allegations made by the complainant. The opposite party admits the loan transaction between them and the complainant. According to the opposite party as per the terms of agreement, the complainant has to pay Rs.8,34,960/- in 48 monthly instalment of Rs.17395/- each. The complainant is irregular in paying the instalments . The opposite party had informed the default through letters and reminders. Inspite of the repeated reminders the complainant failed to pay the amount due and the opposite party came to know from reliable source that the complainant going to transfer the vehicle at Karnataka. Hence the vehicle was repossessed by the opposite party as per the terms of the agreement and at the time taking possession of the vehicle there was a due of Rs.52406/-. . According to them, the possession of the vehicle was taken from Kannur and the entire transaction is from Kannur. Hence this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the matter.


    3. The evidence in this case consists of the affidavit of complainant and Exts.A1 to A7 marked. The opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence but Exts.B 1 & B2 were marked.

    4. The first point is to be considered in this case is whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Admittedly, the loan transaction is entered into between the parties is at Kannur. But the ICICI Bank is having its branch at Kasaragod. Hence the Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try the matter.

    5. The next question raised is whether the repossession of the vehicle by the opposite party is legal or not?

    Here the case of the complainant is that on 28/11/05 when the complainant parked the vehicle at M.G.Road, Kasaragod the opposite party took possession of the vehicle forcibly. The complainant has not stated in his complaint whether he committed default in making payment of the loan amount. The opposite party specifically contended that the complainant since he was irregular in paying the monthly instalments and the opposite party had informed and reminded the complainant several times to make the payment. Eventhough the complainant denied the above fact in his affidavit but it is evident from the records that complainant committed default in making payment of monthly instalments.

    The justification made by the opposite party regarding the forceful repossession of the vehicle is that as per the hypothecation agreement, the opposite party can repossess the vehicle when the loanee is irregular in making the payment of loan amount. Here it is true that the complainant is a defaulter of loan amount to opposite party. As per the terms of vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement entered into between the complainant and opposite party when the borrower fails to pay any amount payable by the borrower to ICICI bank within 15 days of demand, the ICICI bank is entitled to forthwith take physical possession of the vehicle either by itself or by its agent and sell or otherwise deal with the vehicle to enforce ICICI bank’s security and recover the borrowers outstanding dues.

    6. Here the ICICI bank acted upon the above terms of the agreement. But it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Das Sharma and others 2008 CTJ 677 (Supreme Court (CP) that the bank and other financial institutions should note that we live in a civilized society and are governed by the rule of law. They should make recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles only through legal means” (From the above observation it is very clear that the repossession of the vehicle can be done only through lawful means. Here the ICICI bank had repossessed the vehicle forcibly without any recourse to law prevailing in the country. Hence the repossession is illegal.

    7. During the course of arguments the complainant’s counsel submitted that since the vehicle was in possession of the opposite party for more than three years the complainant do not want to get back the vehicle as prayed for and he is prayed for an order of compensation.


    8. After considering the above facts the forum is found that the act of the opposite party is illegal and also the complainant is a chronic defaulter of repayment of the loan amount.

    The value of the vehicle is Rs.9, 00,000/- apart from the loan of Rs.7; 30,000/- availed from the ICICI bank the complainant paid Rs.1, 70,000/- for the vehicle. The complainant used the vehicle about 6 ½ months. The complainant is a chronic defaulter in repayment of the installments of loan. Thereby the opposite party also sustained loss. Considering the depreciation and the loss sustained by the opposite party due to the non-payment of the loan installments the complainant is not entitled to get the margin money he paid towards the purchase of vehicle.


    Hence we allow the complaint in part and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 52185/- being the three installments of loan amount paid by the complainant to ICICI bank. Both parties will have to bear their respective costs.

  7. #37
    Advocate.sonia's Avatar
    Advocate.sonia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    790

    Default ICICI Bank

    As per the hire purchase agreement between the complainant and with the 1st opposite party ICICI Bank with respect of Bajaj Pulsar Motor Bike vide Reg. No. KL-01 AK 6778 owned by the complainant by way of issuing 36 guarantee cheques to the 1st opposite party and as per the agreement the complainant regularly paid the cheque amount.

    First week of January 2007, it was informed from 1st opposite party's office through 1st opposite party's mobile that two payments during the month of November and December 2006 is due and complainant is liable to pay the dues. Again through a mobile call from No. 9349437879, the 2nd opposite party introduced himself as Arunkumar, collection agent of ICICI Bank informed the complainant that the amount due should be paid in the Vazhuthacaud Branch office of ICICI Bank. On the basis of the telephone call the complainant came to 1st opposite party's office premises at about 11 a.m on 15.01.2007. While the complainant reached the office premises the 2nd opposite party came to the complainant and forcibly took vehicle and R.C. Book from the complainant.

    The request made before the 1st opposite party to return the vehicle failed and 1st opposite party compelled the complainant to pay full amount for return of the motor bike. The vehicle seized by 1st opposite party forcibly and without permission from the complainant is illegal and arbitrary. The 1st opposite party company again sent complainant's cheque for collection after the seizure of the bike. The illegal and forcible repossession from the part of the ICICI Bank caused very much loss and mental agony to the complainant. Quite immediately on the illegal repossession of the said vehicle by the opposite parties, the complainant informed his readiness to remit the defaulted amount. But quite contrary the 1st opposite party did not heed the request of the complainant and on the other hand they illegally demanded full payment of the entire loan outstanding expenses and cost etc. to release this vehicle. The said act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice which caused losses, damage, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

    In this case the 1st opposite party is Branch Manager, ICICI Bank and 2nd opposite party is the collection agent of 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party accepted notice from this Forum, but did not turn up to contest the case. The notice against the 2nd opposite party returned with the endorsement 'unclaimed'. Hence the opposite parties remain ex-parte. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and statement of account and has produced 10 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P10.

    Points that would arise for consideration are:-

    1.

    Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
    2.

    Reliefs and costs.

    Points (i) & (ii):- It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant had availed a loan from the 1st opposite party to purchase Bajaj Pulsar Motor Bike vide Reg. No. KL-01 AK 6778. As per the loan agreement the complainant has to pay the entire loan amount in 36 instalments, each instalment amount would come to Rs. 1,537/-. For that remittance the complainant has given 36 cheques to the 1st opposite party and the complainant regularly paid the amount till the 8th instalment and thereafter there was delay in payment of 2 instalments. For that reason the opposite party forcibly taken the vehicle from the custody of the complainant by the 2nd opposite party on 15.01.2007. The request made by the complainant before the 1st opposite party to return the vehicle failed and the 1st opposite party compelled the complainant to pay full amount for return of the motor bike. Again the 1st opposite party sent complainant's cheque for collection after the seizure of the bike. The illegal and forcible repossession from the part of the opposite parties have caused much difficulties, loss and mental agony to the complainant.

    To prove his contentions the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 10 documents. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged.

    The opposite parties never turned up to contest the case of the complainant. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the copy of complaint filed before the Museum police station by the complainant dated 24.01.2007 about the illegal repossession of the vehicle. Ext. P2 is the receipt issued by the police station regarding the complaint. Ext. P3 is the copy of certificate of Registration. As per Ext. P1 name of registration owner is Jayakumar. R(complainant). Ext. P4 is the copy of bank pass book. This document is the evidence that the complainant has paid 8 instalments to the 1st opposite party. Accordingly, the complainant had paid Rs. 12,296/- to the opposite party till 15.01.2007. Ext. P5 is the copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party on 30.01.2007 demanding to hand over the vehicle to the complainant and also pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the illegal and forcible seizure of the vehicle. Ext. P6 is the postal receipt of the legal notice. Ext. P7 is the returned signed acknowledgement card of the notice by the 1st opposite party. But the opposite party never responded to the notice and has not taken any steps to settle the matter. Thereafter on 20.03.2007 the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum and from this Forum notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties accepted the notice from this Forum, but never turned up to contest the case. Ext. P8 is the notice issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dated 13.08.2007 i.e; while the case is pending before this Forum. In the letter the opposite party stated that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the opposite party has the right to repossess the vehicle if the complainant has committed default in payment and the opposite party agreed the repossession of the vehicle on 25.01.2007.

    In this case the complainant has produced a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Shibi Francis Vs. State of Kerala & another in WP(C) No.21411 of 2006(Y) decided on 11th October 2006. In that case the Hon'ble High Court finds that the financier can repossess the vehicle only by lawful means and not by force. In this case the opposite party repossessed the vehicle unlawfully by force. Hence the act of the opposite party definitely amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite party also stated in the letter that they had disposed the said vehicle for an amount of Rs. 24,000/- and the sales proceeds have been credited to the complainant's account. And also they stated in the notice that the complainant has to pay Rs. 2,058/- to the opposite party as balance of the loan amount. As per the opposite party the loan amount is Rs. 44,258/-.


    Through the letter the opposite party himself justified his illegal act. From the above discussion we have seen that the opposite party has disposed the vehicle while this case was pending before this Forum, definitely if there was any bonafide on the side of the opposite party, they should have come before the Forum and try to settle the matter or they can disposed the vehicle as per the permission of this Forum if it is justifiable. Ext. P9 is the copy of reply notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party. In the reply notice the complainant stated the entire facts. Ext. P10 is the postal receipt of reply notice. Even after that notice the opposite party did not come before this Forum. The act of the opposite party in disposing the vehicle while the case is pending before this Forum is against law and justice. They had sufficient time to settle the matter. The complainant was always ready to pay the balance dues, but the opposite parties did not consider his requests. The act of the opposite party definitely amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in their service. In this case as per the statement filed by the complainant he had paid Rs. 16,500/- as the initial payment of the bike and he had also paid Rs. 12,296/- to the opposite party as 8 instalments. The complainant had totally paid an amount of Rs. 28,796/- for the vehicle. The total amount to be paid for the vehicle is Rs. 66,833/-(1537x36+6000), out of which complainant paid Rs. 28,796/-. The complainant has used the vehicle only for 10 months even though he had paid Rs. 28,796/- for the vehicle.

    Due to the deficient service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party complainant has lost his right to get the ownership of the bike and has been deprived the use of the vehicle. As the matter stands as such we find that the complainant has already paid about half of the amount of the vehicle. Normally a bike can be used for about 10 years. Hence the complainant should have the right to use the vehicle for 5 years. Now the complainant has used the vehicle only for 10 months. Hence we are of the view that in the interest of justice it is reasonable to refund Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and sufferings which was caused due to the deficient service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.

    In the result the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant and also shall pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs. This Forum directed the opposite party to return the cheques to the complainant which were obtained from the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the above said amounts shall carry 12% annual interest.

  8. #38
    Advocate.sonia's Avatar
    Advocate.sonia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    790

    Default ICICI Bank Ltd

    Sri Tulijaram Rathod S/o Ramanayak Rathod,

    Age: 40 years, Occ: Owner of vehicle and Agriculture,

    R/o D.No.3/50, Ladlapur,

    Post Chittapur, Dist. Gulbarga.


    // Versus //

    OPPONENT:- 1. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

    The Branch Manager,

    1/46/1, Near Khotari Hospital,

    Bus stand Road, Opp. Mohan Lodge,

    Gulbarga-585 102.

    2. The Manager,

    ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

    Bhuvana Towers, 301, 5th Floor,

    91, S.D. Road,

    SECENDRABAD-500 025.

    : : O R D E R : :

    1. This complaint is filed by one Tulajaram Rathod S/o Ramanayak Rathod, R/o Ladlapur, Post Chittapur, Dist. Gulbarga against the O.Ps. u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying that, direction may be given to O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.16,99,558/- with interest @ 18% per annum in the interest of justice.

    2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as under;

    Complainant is owner of Ashok Leyland Tanker vehicle brg. No.MH-34/M-4029. The said vehicle was insured with O.Ps. vide insurance policy No.3008/53622723/00/000 and the period of insurance is from 4.3.2008 to midnight of 3.3.2009. On 20.3.2008 at about 11.45 a.m., the said Tanker was proceeding from Wadi to Bangalore loaded with cement. At that time near Sindhanur-Siruguppa Road Alabanoor cross, met with an accident with lorry brg.No.AP-28/Y-1083 which was coming from Sindhanur in opposite direction with high speed and dashed to the said Tanker.

    The said Tanker was fully damaged and cement fell down on the road and caused heavy loss to the complainant. A case was registered in Sindhanur P.S., in FIR No.81/2008 u/s.279, 338, 304A of Cr.P.C., against the lorry brg.No.AP-28/Y-1083. The said incident was informed to O.Ps. and claim form and bills and repair charges was submitted by complainant. The Complainant also submitted one “Surject Body Works at Hyderabad”. As per the Survey Report, the repair charge was of Rs.11,67,610/- and it was claimed by complainant. On 19.7.2008, the claim form vide No.MOT007472734 was rejected by O.Ps. as “load carried at the time of accident is more than the permitted carrying capacity”. This was the reason to reject the claim by O.Ps. This clearly shows that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.P. Complainant and his entire family members depend on the earning of this Tanker. But due to the negligence and deficiency of service by O.Ps., complainant sustained irreparable loss and claims compensation amount.

    Complainant informed to O.Ps. about the incident. O.Ps. did not take any steps and went on postponing the matter on one or the other reason. Being fed up with the attitude of O.Ps., complainant issued legal notice dated 7.8.2008 to O.Ps., but till today they have not replied. Hence this complaint is filed. The above mentioned facts constitute the cause of action. This Forum have got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that, complaint may be allowed and direction may be given to O.Ps. as prayed in the complaint.

    3. After registering the case, notices were issued to O.Ps. After serving the notices. Though notice service to O.P.No.1, he did not appear. Complainant has not taken steps against the O.P.No.1, hence complaint against O.P.No.1 is dismissed. O.P.No.2 filed Written Statement contending that, it is a fact that, complainant is the owner of Ashok Leyland Tanker vehicle brg.No.MH-34/M-4029 which was insured with this O.P. It is a fact that, on 20.3.2008, vehicle Tanker of complainant met with an accident.

    It is also a fact that, a case is registered in FIR No.81/2008 on 21.3.2008. But it is false and baseless that, Tanker of complainant in the accident was fully damaged and Cement Load was also thrown on the road and caused heavy loss to complainant. It is true that, complainant has informed to this O.P. and filed claim, but it is false that complainant has submitted bills and repair charges of one “Surjeet Body Works” at Hyderabad. It is further false that, as per survey report, repair charge was to the tune of Rs.11,67,610/- which is the claim of complainant. The insured declared value of the vehicle is below Rs.10,00,000/- and in this circumstances, the claim of complainant apparently without any basis. The bills and repair charges stated by the complainant and submitted is only estimate assessed on assumption and not the actual charges.

    The bills of Famous crane service and Navin Auto Service are totally false and they are created only to make wrongful claim. It is true that, O.P.No.2 has repudiated the claim of complainant and repudiation of the claim is for the reasons assigned in the letter of repudiation which is on the materials on record and as such justifiable. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P.No.2. It is false and baseless that, complainant and his family member depending on the earnings of the vehicle and due to non-settlement of the claim, the complainant sustained irreparable loss. The claim of complainant on various heads is false and baseless and more particularly on the head of repair charges to the tune of Rs.11,67,610/-. The actual damages caused to the vehicle as independent IRDA licenced surveyor the actual damages caused to the vehicle is to the tune of Rs.3,14,286/-.

    Complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. It is submitted that, carrying capacity of load permitted to the vehicle is 25,000Kgs as per certificate of registration, but at the time of accident the vehicle was carried with 27980Kgs which is over load to the vehicle and responsible for the heavy damages, in violation of certificate of registration, permit and in turn terms and conditions of the policy. The over load can be very well seen from the invoice. Therefore, this cannot be said to be beyond the knowledge. Complainant had deliberately over loaded the vehicle with Cement than the permitted carrying capacity as such the complainant himself can take the responsibility of the damages caused to the vehicle and not this O.P. The repudiation of claim of complainant by O.P. is legal, proper and justifiable. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of this O.P.


    4. To prove the claim of complainant, himself was filed affidavit by way of evidence who examined as PW-1, documents got marked Exh.P-1 to P-43. O.P.No.2 also filed affidavit by way of cross of PW-1. Complainant side evidence closed. O.P.No.2 filed affidavit by way of evidence, who examined as RW-1, got marked documents Exh.R-1 to R-7. Complainant also filed affidavit by way of cross of RW-1. O.Ps. side evidence closed.

    5. Heard the arguments from both sides.

    6. The points that arises for our consideration are;
    (1) Whether there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?
    (2) What Order?

    7. Our answer to the above points are as under:-
    (1) Yes.
    (2) As per final order for the following;

    : : R E A S O N S : :

    8. Point No:1 :

    We have carefully perused the evidence of complainant, affidavit and documents. Complainant case is that, he is owner of Ashok Leyland Tanker vehicle brg. No.MH-34/M-4029 which was insured with O.Ps. vide insurance policy No.3008/53622723/00/000. It is further stated in the complaint that, on 20.3.2008 at about 11.45 a.m., vehicle belonging to complainant i.e Tanker which was proceeding from Wadi to Bangalore loaded with cement. When the said vehicle came near Sindhanur-Siruguppa Road Alabanoor cross, which met with an accident with lorry brg.No.AP-28/Y-1083 which was coming from Sindhanur in opposite direction with high speed, dashed to the Tanker. Accordingly, the said Tanker was fully damaged and cement fell down on the road and caused heavy loss to complainant.

    The loss sustained by complainant is to the tune of Rs.11,67,610/-. The accident was informed to O.Ps. and submitted claim along with necessary documents. But O.Ps. have repudiated the claim of complainant on filthy grounds, hence there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. Complainant was examined as PW-1 documents got marked Exh.P-1 to P-43 they are Exh.P-1 is insurance policy, Exh.P-2 is Goods Carriage Permit, Exh.P-3 is Xerox copy of R.C. Book, Exh.P-4 is letter issued by MVI, RTO Raichur to PSI, Sindhanoor P.S., Exh.P-5 is bill issued by Navin Auto Service, Wadi, Exh.P-6 is bill issued by Famous Crane Service Hyderabad, Exh.P-7 to P-12 are estimate issued by Surjeet Body Works, Hyderabad, Exh.P-13 is repudiation letter issued by O.P., Exh.P-14 is certificate issued by Branch Manager, Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Gulbarga, Exh.P-15 is Telephone bill, Exh.P-16 & P-17 are Driving Licence, Exh.P-18 is FIR, Exh.P-19 is spot panchanama, Exh.P-20 is statement recorded by police, Exh.P-21 is letter issued by Sri Jai bhavani Transport, Sedam to Sales Manager, Vasavadatta Cement, Sedam, Exh.P-22 is Emission Test Certificate, Exh.P-23 is cancellation of hypothecation, Exh.P-24 is delivery note issued by Vasavadatta Cement, Exh.P-25 is invoice issued by Vasavadatta Cement, Exh.P-26 is motor vehicle accident report, Exh.P-27 is postal acknowledgement, Exh.P-28 & P-29 are legal notices issued by complainant, Exh.P-30 to P-32, P-35 to P-42 are bills issued by Devendra Motors, Hyderabad, Exh.P-33 is bill issued by Surjeet Body Works, Hyderabad, Exh.P-34 is bill issued by M/s. Manibhadra Fabricators, Hyderabad, Exh.P-43 are photographs (4 nos.). On careful perusal of the affidavit which was filed by O.P.No.2, during course of his evidence, he admitted that, complainant is the owner of Ashok Leyland Tanker vehicle brg.No.MH-34/M-4029 which was insured with O.P. He also admitted the accident occurred on 20.3.2008. It is denied that, as per survey report, repair charge was to the tune of Rs.11,67,610/- which is the claim of complainant.

    The surveyor assessed the actual damages caused to the vehicle is to the tune of Rs.3,14,286/-. The contention of O.P. is that, carrying capacity of load permitted to the vehicle is only 25,000Kgs as per certificate of registration, but at the time of accident, vehicle was carrying with 27980Kgs which is over load to the vehicle and responsible for the heavy damages, in violation of certificate of registration, permit and in turn terms and conditions of the policy. The over load can be very well seen from the invoice. Therefore, O.P. repudiated the claim of complainant. The repudiation of claim of complainant by O.P. is legal, proper and justifiable. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this O.Ps. When he was examined as RW-1, some documents got marked Exh.R-1 to R-7 they are Exh.R-1 is claim details, Exh.R-2 & R-4 are one and the same which is letter issued by Sri Jai Bhavani Transport, Sedam to The Manager Vasavadatta Cement, Sedam, Exh.R-3 is Delivery Note, Exh.R-5 is Invoice issued by Vasavadatta Cement, Sedam, Exh.R-6 is insurance policy, Exh.R-7 is Goods carriage permit. On careful perusal of the documents filed by complainant and also got marked i.e Exh.P-32 to P-42 which are bills issued by various firms which reveals that, complainant has repaired the vehicle and incurred expenditure for repairing the said vehicle.

    In the present case, contention of O.P. is that, complainant at the time of accident carrying cement which was overloaded. But this aspect is not considered since the vehicle was insured with O.P. Hence it is the bounden duty of the O.P. is to compensate the loss. In the present case, O.P. has not proved that, the vehicle of complainant was overloaded with cement by adducing cogent and convince evidence. Therefore, on going through the documents, in our view, if we award Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation, it will meets ends of justice. On going through the evidence of complainant, affidavit and documents, in our considered opinion there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps., accordingly we answered this point in affirmative.

    9. Point No.2 :

    In view of the discussions made on point No.1, we also answered this point in affirmative. Hence we proceed to pass the following;

    : : O R D E R : :

    Complaint is partly allowed. Complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization from O.Ps. Further complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of this proceedings from O.Ps.

  9. #39
    Advocate.sonia's Avatar
    Advocate.sonia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    790

    Default I.C.I.C.I. Bank

    1. Mr. Rajesh Damodar Rokade )

    Prerna Building, Flat No. 5, )

    Chinchwad gaon, Next to )

    Talera Hospital, Chinchwad, )

    PUNE – 33 )



    2. Dr. Mrs. Tilottama Rajesh Rokade )

    Gayatri G-1, Barlota Nagar, )

    Dehu Road, PUNE – 412 101 )… COMPLAINANTS



    - : VERSUS : -



    I.C.I.C.I. Bank, )

    870/1, Suma House, Opp. Food World, )

    Bhandarkar Road, Deccan Gymkhana, )

    PUNE – 411 005 )… OPPONENT

    This is the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponent bank. The complaint is filed by the husband and wife alleging deficiency. The facts in brief are as under.

    [2] The complainants wanted to dispose of their old Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle. They also wanted to purchase new Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle. At this time the exchange offer was made at the behest of the opponent bank. The complainants disposed of their old motor cycle for an amount of Rs. 23,000/- and the price of Pulsar was fixed at Rs. 50,702/-. The complainants paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the bank. The remaining amount was borrowed by them by signing number of prescribed forms and by submitting the necessary documents. According to the complainants, loan of an amount of Rs. 30,702/- was sanctioned by the bank.

    [3] The new motor cycle was purchased in the name of the husband. The loan application was however filed by both of them, but it was agreed that the loan shall be discharged by the wife from her saving account bearing no. 2857 maintained in Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Branch at Chinchwad. It was also agreed that the equated monthly installments (E.M.I.) were to be paid by the wife by Electronic Clearing System (E.C.S.). The payment of EMI was at Rs. 1493/-. It was to be paid for a period of 24 months from the date of sanction of loan.

    [4] Accordingly the EMI were recovered from the account of the wife for couple of months. Certain events started after 29/11/2003. The wife proceeded on maternity leave. On the same day at about evening time, she was contacted by the representative of Balaji Associates. This is said to be Recovery unit of the opponent bank. The wife was appraised of the bouncing of the post dated cheques.

    The complainants submits that the mode of payment was explained to the representative. On the following date i.e. on 30/11/2003, the representative from the Recovery Unit arrived at the residential place of the complainants. Again the method by which the EMI are paid was explained to that representative. He appears to have contacted one Mr. Rajesh from the opponent bank. He, too, was explained the manner in which EMI are paid. After two days another representative of the Recovery Unit came at the residence of the complainant. The wife showed her updated pass book. That representative contacted Finance Manager Shri. Mukund Kulkarni. Again the wife explained the method by which the payment is made by ECS, Shri. Kulkarni was satisfied with the explanation. He apologized and the complainants were assured that the problem will be sorted out.

    [5] The wife delivered a baby on 5th Dec. 2003. On 22nd Dec. 2003 about 7 to 8 persons came at the residence of the complainant. They forcibly took away new Pulsar vehicle from the possession of the complainant. A newly born baby child was in the house. It was not possible to raise any obstruction to these persons. On 12th Jan 2004 a letter is received by the complainants calling upon them to make a payment of Rs. 33,704.13 together with interest @ 24% p.a. The said payment was to be made within the period of seven days from the receipt of the letter by the complainants.

    The complainants therefore approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadgaon Maval by filing criminal case of theft against Balaji Associates. They claimed possession of the new Pulsar motor cycle. The reply was obtained by learned Judicial Magistrate. In that reply the opponent bank has admitted that the mistake was typographical. According to the complainants, the name of the husband was mentioned for ECS clearing to the saving account held by the wife that too in her maiden name. The complainants then learned that they were cheated by the bank. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- was received by the bank as a deposit. The loan of entire cost of the vehicle was sanctioned by the bank. Thus alleging deficiency, the complainants have approached the Forum by filing the present complaint.

    [6] The complainants prayed that they be refunded the price of the vehicle together with future interest @ 24% from purchase till final settlement of the accounts. The complainants are deprived of enjoying the new motor bike. The husband has sustained substantial loss in his business. He could not complete his work within fixed period. Consequently therefore the complainant prayed for an amount of Rs. 74,200/- towards delayed completion work and an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- towards loss incurred due to withdrawal of four new projects. In addition to that the complainants prayed for an amount of Rs. 88,000/-towards inconvenience caused to the husband. On account of forcibly taking out the new vehicle from the possession of the complainants, they claimed an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards loss of reputation. These and such other reliefs have been prayed by the complainants.

    [7] The opponent has filed its written statement. It has raised number of pleas. Amongst other, it is the contention of the bank that the husband has no Locus-Standi to claim any damage, compensation or loss from the opponent. The loan was sanctioned to the wife. The disbursement of the loan was made by the wife. The husband is therefore not entitled to claim any damages. At the same time the bank admits that the wife had applied for loan to purchase the vehicle. The loan of Rs. 50,702/- was sanctioned by the bank. The repayment mode was agreed by EMI for 24 months. It is then pleaded that the wife was not regular in repayment of the EMI. Consequently therefore in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and after adopting due process of law, the bank has seized the Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle. This very plea is repeated in the subsequent paragraphs.

    [8] It is then denied that the bank has cheated the complainants by not intending to refund the deposit amount. The litigation before learned J.M.F.C., Wadgaon is admitted. The bank submits that initially the bank was directed to hand over the possession of the vehicle to the complainants. The order to that effect was also passed by learned Magistrate on 04/03/2004. Aggrieved by that order, the bank has preferred a Criminal Revision Application before Hon’ble Session Judge and order of stay is obtained in favour of the bank.

    The contention is that the said interim order passed by the Hon’ble Session Judge has impliedly adjudicated title of the complainant and that of the bank vis-à-vis the new Pulsar motor cycle. Again the said contention is repeated by the bank in the following paragraphs and in the subsequent reply filed by the bank. The written statement is unsigned by the employee of the bank. Nevertheless the same is signed by the learned Advocate on behalf of the opponent bank. The affidavit in support of the written statement is duly signed by one Mr. Mukund Kulkarni on behalf of the bank. Thus failure to sign the written statement can safely be ignored.

    [9] Before we deal with the controversial question involved in the present case, we may refer to certain facts in respect which there is no dispute. Admittedly the new motor cycle stands in the name of the husband. The perusal of the written statement would go to shoe that it was wife, who had filed the application for borrowing the loan. Alongwith the complaint, a copy of Hypothecation Agreement is produced by the complainants.

    The same is duly signed by the husband and wife. As against that, at least the said copy does not bear the signature of the officer or the representative for and on behalf of the bank. Thus the contention of the bank will have to be appreciated in the context of the manner in which the repayment was agreed by the wife. The fact, however remains that the transaction as such is not disputed. The liability to repay the loan including the quantum of EMI and the duration thereof is also not disputed. Again there is another admitted fact. Certain cheques had been cleared by the banker of the wife although prima facie the contention is raised by the complainants that they were issued in the name of the husband.

    [10] The specific contention is therefore raised by the opponent bank that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and by following due process of law, the new motor cycle was seized by the bank. The date of seizure is 22/12/2003. The time mentioned of that seizure is about 9.40 p.m. A document to that effect is produced by the complainant.

    We shall have consider this specific plea taken by the bank in the context of the aforesaid admitted facts. Obviously, the original Hypothecation agreement is in the custody of the bank. The bank did not produce the same. A copy thereof produced by the complainants is neither legible nor readable. Now a specific plea raised by the opponent bank will have to be established by pointing out one or other breaches or violation of the terms and the conditions of that Hypothecation Agreement. At least during the course of the argument a specific attention of this Forum was not drawn to a particular clause of that Hypothecation Agreement. An omnibus or general statement is made by the bank showing that the complainants had contravened the said terms.

    [11] One of the significant circumstance is that the motor cycle is in the name of the husband. The loan was repaid by the wife from her account maintained by her in her maiden name. She had made that application; the loan was sanctioned to her. In all probability she must have signed number of post dated cheques in her maiden name. The contention of the complainants is that the bank is not oblivious or ignorant of this particular fact. We shall have to bear in mind that the original Hypothecation Agreement is withheld by the bank. The same is not produced for the reasons best known to the bank.

    [12] Non production of the dishonoured cheques assumes much more importance. Admittedly for a couple of month, after loan was sanctioned in the month of July 2003, the EMI were paid to the bank. Those cheques were cleared. The mistake, which was there in issuance of the cheque was probably ignored by the wife’s banker. The fact remains that sub-sequent cheques were admittedly dishonoured. Consequently therefore an extreme step of seizing motor cycle in the month of Dec. 2003 was taken. The non production of these dishonoured cheques assumes importance in the said context.

    In the complaint it is pleaded that the name of the husband was mentioned by the opponent bank for ECS clearing to the saving account held by the wife. As such those cheques were dishonoured. These facts were explained in detail initially to one Shri. Rajesh and later on to Shri Mukund Kulkarni. The later is working as a Finance Manager of the opponent bank. It may be mentioned that it is Mr. Kulkarni, who had sworn in an affidavit in support of the written statement. We shall deal with yet an another omission in his affidavit. At this stage it is necessary to bear in mind the manner in which the cheques were dishonoured; as mentioned by the complainants in their complaint.

    [13] The opponent bank had filed number of replies and has also filed written notes of argument. In one of the reply filed by the opponent bank before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadgaon, it is categorically mentioned in para 3(iii) as under,

    “That there has been Typographical/Manual Error

    that has occurred in the instant case of the

    complainant in the process of ECS clearance.”

    [14] It is therefore apparent that there was some or other error committed by the opponent bank, which had resulted in difficulty in process of ECS clearance. Again in yet an another copy of the reply filed by the opponent before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadgaon, the same thing is reiterated. It would therefore go to show that the manner in which the cheques were dishonoured has not been established before the Forum with reasonable certainty. In the written statement filed by the bank, there is no whisper as to how these cheques are dishonoured. It is therefore material for us to bear in mind; these dishonoured cheques had not been produced by the bank with certain intention. The same may be oblique. Subsequent examination of the case would reflects, whether the intention to withheld dishonoured cheques was oblique or otherwise.

    [15] Again we shall have to revert back to the plea of the bank that it had followed the due process of law. Apparently there is hardly any evidence, worth the name, filed by the bank to substantiate the said plea. The complainants have given the instances subsequent to 29/11/2003. The complainants have given the names of the employees, who were explained the manner in which ECS clearing system was required to be operated. That operation of system was explained to one Shri. Rajesh and later on to Shri. Kulkarni. Shri. Kulkarni has filed his affidavit, but there is total omission in that affidavit regarding the explanation offered by the wife of the mode of the repayment.

    [16] In fact the incidents subsequent to 29/11/2003 have been merely denied. It may be recalled, that the complainants had given the names of the employee who were explained the procedure. Specific allegations with regard to names, dates etc. were made by the complainants. There was an opportunity to the bank to offer an explanation. The affidavit of Shri. Kulkarni is therefore unreliable vis-à-vis the incidents subsequent to 29/11/2003. In the complaint the name of Shri. Kulkarni is mentioned. On learning the procedure to clear the EMI, Shri. Kulkarni is said to have tendered his apology. With reference to the incidents also no explanation, worth the name, is offered by Shri. Kulkarni.

    [17] It appears therefore that the bank has clearly admitted before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadgaon in couple of their replies that on account of manual or typographical error, the difficulty was there in the process of ECS clearing. Certain mistake was committed by the employee of the opponent bank.

    The name of the wife was probably not mentioned in dishonoured cheques. Even assuming the name of the wife was mentioned, the maiden name of the wife was not written. It is equally possible that instead of writing the name of the wife the name of the husband was mentioned in those cheques. The husband does not hold the said account 2857. One has to draw number of inferences in the absence of non production of the dishonoured cheques. The fact remains that there is unequivocal admission given by the bank before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadgaon, stating that there was also typographical or manual error in clearing cheques. That admission will have to be used in favour of the complainants. We therefore find that non production of the dishonoured cheque is fatal to the case of the opponent bank.

    [18] It was expected on the part of the bank to produce these dishonoured cheques, which would have substantiated its contention that, it had followed due process of law for realization of the loan. We therefore hold that in the absence of any evidence to prove that the bank had followed due process of law, it cannot be accepted that action of the bank to seize the bike on 22/12/2003 is justifiable.

    The same can not be recognized and protected even in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Hypothecation Agreement. Then an another important fact which has come in the reply filed by the opponent before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadgaon, is to the effect that the vehicle was seized on 22/12/2003. The prior pre intimation letter was issued to the police station on 23/12/2003. By no stretch of imagination the intimation given to the police on 23/12/2003 can be said to be prior pre intimation. The seizure was already effected on 22/12/2003. The pre intimation notice dtd. 23/12/2003 is reduced to an empty formality.

    [19] The discussion made herein however would go to show that specific plea raised by the bank is not substantiated by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. In fact no evidence is adduced by the bank. On the other hand it had withheld the Hypothecation Agreement and dishonoured cheques with certain oblique intention. It is equally possible that the mistake was committed by the bank in correctly giving the name on the post dated cheques issued by the wife. It is possible that the name of the husband was mentioned. Possibly the name of the wife was mentioned after her marriage. In any case maiden name of the wife was not written on those post dated cheques, which had resulted in failure to clear those cheques.

    [20] In the result therefore, we are inclined to hold that the bank has adopted unduly hasty, arbitrary action in seizing vehicle on 22/12/2003. It had taken advantage of its own wrong. The name of the borrower was correctly mentioned in those cheques.

    The bank admitted that it was either a typographical or manual error, which indicates that the fault lies not with the complainants, but with the opponent bank. The complainants submitted that there was sufficient balance at the credit of the wife. The cheques were not dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. It is nobody’s case. The fault therefore is of the opponent bank. The complainants were ready and willing to make payment of EMI. In fact post dated cheques were issued by the wife. The mistake was committed by the opponent bank and therefore cheques are dishonoured. We hereby find that the bank is taking undue advantage from its own mistake. The contention of the complainants that the bank had adopted high handed illegal tactics in seizing the vehicle after sunset on 22/12/2003 will have to be accepted. The deficiency in service is apparent on the face of the record.

    [21] The next question for our determination is about the amount of compensation. As stated earlier, the husband has claimed independent compensation. His Locus Standi is challenged by the bank, contending that the loan was sanctioned to the wife. If that be the case, there was no reason for the bank to seize the motor bike; it could have proceeded against the wife for realization of the loan. By ceasing the vehicle arbitrarily, illegally, loss is caused to the husband and therefore he is competent to institute complaint alleging deficiency in service. At the same time there is hardly any evidence adduced by the complainants regarding the huge loss suffered by the complainants. In absence of any evidence, no such claim can be awarded. The inconvenience, loss of reputation, these are the matters, which will have to be inferred. It is no doubt true that in the presence of the parents of the wife, the vehicle in question was picked up by the employee of the bank. They had no reasons to pick up that vehicle, particularly, when they had failed to follow the due process of law. Such a muscle power exercised by the employees of the bank will have to be condemned. We therefore find that the complaint will have to be allowed in part. The following order would meet the ends of justice.

    ** O R D E R **

    1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part.

    2. The opponent bank is hereby directed to pay

    an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only)

    to the complainants together with interest

    thereon @ 12% p.a. from 22/12/2003 till the

    realization thereof by the complainants.

    3. The aforesaid payment be made to the

    complainants within two months from the

    date of receipt of copy of this order by the

    opponent bank.

    4. All other claims made by the complainants

    are hereby are rejected.

  10. #40
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default ICICI bank

    Roshan Lal S/O Shri Singh Dass,

    Resident of Surya Vanshi Niwas, Sanjauli,

    Shimla-171006.

    … Complainant.
    Versus
    The Manager, ICICI bank,

    The Mall Shimla-171001.
    …Opposite Party
    O R D E R:

    Per, Charanjit Singh, Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OP-ICICI bank averring therein that he is holder of saving bank account bearing No.635301504399. It is averred that as per the terms and conditions of the Bank, a customer is required to maintain quarterly average deposit of Rs.5,000/-, which condition was to remain in force upto 30th June, 2008.

    The complainant further proceeded to aver that on 7th April, 2008, the OP-Bank wrote to the complainant that from 1st July, 2008, quarterly average balance shall be Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- and he was also asked to close the account, in case the revised conditions are not acceptable to him. The complainant, accordingly, requested the OP-Bank to close his saving bank account, but, the OP-Bank, it is averred, was, reluctant. It is averred that the complainant obtained a summary of account as on 31.03.2008, from the OP-Bank, and was astonished to find that between January, 2008 and March, 2008 Rs.1405/- were shown as withdrawn, which are due to non-maintenance of quarterly average balance of Rs.5,000/- Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The notice of this complaint was issued to the for 17.11.2008, on which date, none appeared on behalf of the OP-Bank, despite valid service and as such the complaint was ordered to be heard exparte against the OP-Bank, vide order dated 17.11.2008.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    5. The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, besides his personal affidavit, has relied upon documents which bears Annexure C-1, C-2 & C-3. Annexure C-1 is revision of minimum quarterly average balance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-, which has been issued by the OP-Bank to its customers. Annexure C-2 is Rapat No.15 dated 08.05.2008, whereas, Annexure C-3 is summary of account.

    6. The claim as asserted in the complaint, by the complainant that after issuance of Annexure C-1, when, he, approached the OP-Bank and requested them to close his saving bank account, remained unrebutted or un-controverted on behalf of the OP-Bank, as, it does not think it proper to contest the claim, hence, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the OP-Bank. In the OP-Bank having not closed his account, despite issuance of Annexure C-1, would certainly constitute a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence, in the given circumstances and facts of the case, they cannot exculpate its liability not to close the saving bank account of the complainant after the issuance of Annexure C-1, when it is not acceptable to the complainant. In so far as, the claim as asserted in the complaint, for awarding of damages is concerned, we are of the considered view that there is no cogent and convincing worth the name, to substantiate the fact of awarding of compensation of Rs.50,000/-,hence rejected.

    9. In the light of the above discussion, the OP-Bank is directed to close the saving bank account of the complainant bearing No.635301504399, forthwith and defray the amount of the said account to the complainant within a period of two weeks, after the date of receipt of copy of this order.

  11. #41
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default ICICI Bank Limited

    Madan Lal s/o Ram Chand r/o 22K, Street No.3, Backside Green Land School, Aman Nagar, Jalandhar Bye Pass, Ludhiana.
    …..Complainant.
    Versus

    1- ICICI Bank Limited, Feroze @@@@hi Market (Credit Card Branch), Ludhiana through authorized signatory.

    2- ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Tower, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai through authorized signatory.

    ….Opposite parties.

    O R D E R

    1- Complainant has obtained credit card no.4477-4685-3188-5007 from the opposite party. He claimed in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that despite disconnection of services by opposite party, due to loss of credit card, and to prevent its misuse by unknown person, they served statement dated 15.9.2007, claiming Rs.4311.02.

    After the card was stolen, under threat of police action, threats made to complainant to pay Rs.22810/- as per statement dated 15.3.2007, including previous dues of Rs.1949.75. Complainant paid the same being employee of BSNL and to avoid legal consequences. He paid the amount under protest. Though was not under legal obligation to pay the same. After paying bill dated 15.3.2007, nothing was due from the complainant. So, they claimed in this complaint that by forcing him to pay Rs.22810/-, opposite party resorted to unfair trade practice, as his credit card was already lost, qua which telephonic intimation dated 23.10.2006 to the opposite party.

    They had promised to de-activate his card and sent him another card at his address. They sent him another card, but in the name of Mr. Jai Bhawan, which was returned by the complainant on 18.2.2007, requesting telephonically, to issue correct card in his name. Thereafter, opposite party claimed Rs.21590/- under various transactions and supplied him statement dated 5.2.2007, showing transaction period 13.1.2006 to 29.11.2006. He protested illegal transfer of amount which does not relate to him, as the card not utilized by him after theft. Hence, prayed to penalize the opposite party with penalty of Rs.25000/- for deficient and negligent services and to prohibit them from issuing illegal bill and to set aside illegal demand of Rs.21590/-.

    2- Opposite party have admitted obtaining of credit card from them by the complainant. But denied that complainant ever intimated loss of the credit card or got it cancelled from them. No telephone about loss was ever made by the complainant. Rather, complainant himself had used the card and certain amount is outstanding against him.

    Had he cleared the amount of his credit card, his case would have been closed and no statement given to him. The sum of Rs.5427.69 is outstanding against him on 3.4.2008. Instead of paying the amount, has filed this complaint. It is further denied that complainant was not liable to pay Rs.22810/- and was forced to pay the same on account of use of credit card. They never promised the complainant to de-activate the services, nor he ever on 23.10.2006, intimated them telephonically qua loss of the card.

    3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

    4- In this case, complainant is required to establish theft or loss of his credit card and intimating opposite party, to cancel his credit card, in order to prevent its misuse by anybody. But before we come to this question, may state that complainant has alleged forcing him to payRs.22810/-, as per statement dated 15.3.2007. Ex.C2 is copy of the same. But there is no proof that amount was got paid by the complainant by force, under threat or police action, as is stated by him in his affidavit Ex.CA1. Also, there is no proof that he paid that bill under protest.

    5- Next grouse of the complainant, is claiming Rs.21590/- vide statement dated 5.2.2007(Ex.C1) from him. This Ex.C1 is not statement of account, but a letter addressed by opposite party to the complainant, showing details of the amount due from him.

    6- Complainant, who is employee of BSNL, claims that loss of the credit card, was intimated by him telephonically on 23.10.2006 to opposite party, requesting them to de-activate the service. No proof of print out of his telephone from which, message was conveyed to opposite party, is placed on the record, to authenticate his allegations. In fact, no proof is led by complainant to the effect that he had telephonically intimated loss of the card to the opposite party.

    7- Second allegations that after loss, opposite party issued another card to him, which was in the name of Mr. Jai Bhawan, which he returned to opposite party on 18.2.2007, is also not born out from any material on the record.

    8- While complainant took credit card facility from opposite party, he filled application form Ex.R1. Ex.R1/4 are the papers, containing terms and conditions of the credit card. It was agreed under this agreement with opposite party by the complainant that if card is lost or stolen, he must report the loss or theft of the card to the bank within 24 hours and also shall lodge theft report with the police. But no such proof of loss or theft of card, is adduced by the complainant. Neither, he reported loss or theft, by lodging FIR with the police. It means he himself infringed terms and conditions of the agreement under which, had taken credit card from the opposite party.

    9- In these circumstances, there is nothing before us that complainant had lost the card, due to theft and reported such loss to opposite party, requesting to cancel the same. Therefore, it means he had been using the card himself. Therefore, we find no merit in allegations of the complainant that after loss of the card, opposite party wrongfully demanded Rs.21590/- from. Consequently, complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.

  12. #42
    Advocate.sonia's Avatar
    Advocate.sonia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    790

    Default ICICI Bank

    1. Mohinder Kaur (aged 62 years)

    2. Sadhu Singh Gill (aged 65 years) both residents of Santokh Niwas, Akalsar Road, Moga.

    Versus

    1. ICICI Bank Limited, “Land Mark” Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 through its Managing Director or any other competent authority.

    2. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Ferozepur Road, Moga.

    Opposite Parties.

    Smt.Mohinder Kaur and Sh.Sadhu Singh Gill complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against ICICI Bank Limited, “Land Mark” Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 through its Managing Director or any other competent authority and another (herein-after referred to as ‘ICICI Bank’)-opposite parties directing them to return a sum of Rs.26589/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum the excess interest on maturity amount of term deposits and also to pay Rs.50000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment or any other relief to which this Forum may deem fit be granted.

    2. Briefly stated, Mohinder Kaur and Sadhu Singh complainants had deposited their savings under the ‘term deposited scheme’ with OP2-ICICI Bank, the detail of which are mentioned in para no. 3 of the complaint. That in the meantime, the complainants also availed loan facility of Rs.920000/- on 2.6.2008 against the said ‘term deposited scheme’ (FDRs). At the time of availing the said loan, it was agreed between the parties that the loan amount shall be automatically deducted from the maturity amount of above said ‘term deposits’ on their respective maturity dates.

    That the OPs-Bank failed to stand upon their wordings and they deducted the loan amount from the maturity amount of above said deposits much later than the date of their respective maturities. In this way, the complainants were unnecessarily burdened with Rs.26589/- as interest in excess than they had to pay. That the complainants requested the OPs-Bank number of times to admit their rightful claim and to refund the amount of Rs.26589/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-ICICI Bank has caused them great mental tension and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

    3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-ICICI Bank, who appeared through Sh.Ajay Gulati Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is false, frivolous, baseless and vexatious and the same may kindly be dismissed with compensatory costs; that the complainants are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present complaint as they have already received the amount after adjustment of the loan without any protest, so this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. On merits, it was averred that it was not agreed between the OPs-ICICI Bank and complainants that the loan amount shall be automatically deducted from the maturity amount on the dates of their respective maturities.

    That the loan was availed by the complainants against the FDRs as well as they executed demand promissory note dated 31.3.2008 in favour of OPs-ICICI Bank. As per the rules and terms & conditions of the loan agreement, the OPs-ICICI Bank had a right to adjust the loan amount on the first maturity date of FDR i.e. 14.9.2008, but they did not close the loan account of the complainants as they would have suffered loss on the first maturity date of the FDR i.e. 14.9.2008 to the extent of Rs.38187/-. That on 14.9.2008 due to closure of loan account, two more FDRs would have been prematurely closed, dates of maturity of which were 20.9.2008 and 6.11.2008.

    The FDRs were issued on interest @ Rs.10% per annum, but due to their premature closure, the complainants would have received the interest @ 5.75% per annum only. So there was clear cut loss to the complainant. So keeping in view the benefit of the complainants inspite of having right to close the loan account and adjust the same from the FDRs of complainant, the OPs-ICICI Bank did not do so. Moreover, the said loan was also secured by demand promissory note dated 31.3.2009 and as per the rules and practice, the OPs-ICICI Bank did not close/ adjust the loan account by way of closing the FDRs prematurely without having written instructions from the complainants.

    That the complainants approached the OPs-ICICI Bank on 11.11.2008 and gave written instructions to close the loan account after adjusting the FDRs, then the OPs-ICICI Bank adjusted the loan account after closing the FDRs prematurely belonging to the complainants. Moreover, the OPs-Bank being a prudent and customer friendly again tried to remove alleged grievances of the complainant at their level as they did not want to loose their customer and again reviewed the accounts of the complainants.

    The OPs-ICICI Bank in the interest of the customers, prepared a cheque amounting to Rs.18140/- and offered them to receive the same before this Forum, but the complainants refused to accept. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs-ICICI Bank. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous may please be dismissed.

    4. In order to prove their case, the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of Sadhu Singh complainant Ex.A1, joint affidavit of Sadhu Singh and Mohinder Kaur complainants Ex.A2, affidavit of Harnek Singh Ex.A3, copy of notice Ex.A4, receipts Ex.A5 and Ex.A6, copy of summary report Ex.A7 and closed their evidence.

    5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-ICICI Bank tendered affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Amandeep Sethi, copies of letters Ex.R2 and Ex.R3, copy of demand promissory note Ex.R4, copy of calculation Ex.R5, copies of FDRs Ex.R6 to Ex.R9, subsequent affidavit of Amandeep Sethi Ex.R10 and closed their evidence.

    6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.P.S.Sangha ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.Ajay Gulati ld.counsel for OPs-ICICI Bank and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

    7. Sh.P.S.Sangha ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OPs-ICICI Bank has failed to adjust the proceeds of the matured FDRs belonging to the complainants from time to time in their loan account and thereby committed deficiency in service. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainants has full force. Admittedly, the complainants had four term deposits (FDRs) with the OPs-ICICI Bank, the details of which are mentioned in para no.3 of the complaint. It is also admitted case of the parties that the complainants took loan of Rs.920000/- on 2.6.2008 against the said FDRs from the OPs-ICICI Bank. In this regard, the loan agreement Ex.R3 and demand promissory note Ex.R4 were executed by the complainants in favour of the OPs-ICICI Bank.

    The details of the FDRs show that first FDR was to mature on 14.9.2008. As per loan agreement Ex.R3, the OPs-ICICI Bank was required to deposit/ adjust the proceeds of the said FDR into the loan account of the complainants. But instead of depositing/ adjusting the proceeds of the FDR in the loan account of the complainants, they put the same in their saving account at lesser rate of interest and they continued charging 12% rate of interest on the loan amount.

    However, they where giving the less rate of interest on the same account to the complainants. In this way, the complainants had suffered loss i.e. by paying the higher rate of interest on the loan while getting the less rate of interest on the saving account. The complainants were not fool to give higher rate of interest on the loan amount while getting the lesser rate of interest on their saving account instead of adjusting the proceeds of the FDRs in the loan account.

    8. Moreover, the agreement Ex.R3 shows that the OPs-ICICI Bank was duty bound to set off the proceeds of the FDRs on their maturity into loan account of the complainants instead of renewing or transferring the same in their saving account. One of the clauses of the loan agreement Ex.R3, show that “Loan will be repaid by us. In case the loan is not repaid by the due date/ maturity of the term deposits, the bank has the right to set off the outstanding in the loan account reserve of the interest out of the proceeds of the deposits and pay me/us the balance amount, if any.”

    Thus, the aforesaid clause in the loan agreement shows that the OPs-ICICI Bank was required to transfer the proceeds of the FDRs of the complainant on their maturity into their loan account only. They had no power either to renew the proceeds of the FDRs or to transfer the same in any other account. So the OPs-ICICI Bank has no right, title or interest to put the complainants into disadvantage position by transferring the proceeds of their FDRs from time to time into their saving account or by renewing them for few days having lesser rate of interest.

    This fact finds corroboration when the OPs-ICICI Bank tried to give some amount to the complainants after the filing of the present complaint. The OPs-ICICI Bank after filing of the complaint realized their mistake and offered a cheque of Rs. 18140/- to the complainants in order to meet their grievances, but the complainants have refused to accept the same as they have claimed Rs.26589/- the excess interest charged by the OPs-ICICI Bank. The aforesaid offered amount by the OPs-ICICI Bank was too short and the same was offered to the complainant without future interest. Hence, the complainants were justified in refusing the interest amount of Rs.18140/-.

    9. The contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-ICICI Bank that the complainants had given application dated 11.11.2008 for the pre-mature proceeds of the FDRs to be paid in their loan account. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-ICICI Bank has no merit. The complainants were not required to give any separate application on 11.11.2008 to the OPs-ICICI Bank for giving them directions to put the proceeds of their FDRs from time to time into their loan account because this condition has already been mentioned in the loan agreement Ex.R3 entered into between the parties.

    This fact has been conceded by the OPs-ICICI Bank when they offered Rs.18140/- to the complainant during the proceedings of this case. We, therefore, hold that the OPs-ICICI wrongly and illegally did not transfer the proceeds of the FDRs of the complainants on their maturity from time to time i.e. 14.9.2008, 20.9.2008 and 6.11.2008 into their loan account and thereby committed deficiency in service.

    Thus, we hold that the complainants have been able to prove that the OPs-ICICI Bank has committed deficiency in service by not depositing/adjusting the proceeds of their FDRs from time to time in their loan account and caused loss of Rs.26589/-, the excess interest accrued, to the complainants. By doing so, the OPs-ICICI Bank has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to the complainants who are aged and retired persons and deposited their hard earned money in the shape of term deposits (FDRs) with them. Thus, they are entitled to pay compensation and we therefore, order the OPs-ICICI Bank to pay compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainants.

    10. To prove the aforesaid contentions, the complainants have produced affidavit of Sadhu Singh complainant Ex.A1, joint affidavit of Sadhu Singh and Mohinder Kaur complainants Ex.A2, affidavit of Harnek Singh Ex.A3, copy of notice Ex.A4, receipts Ex.A5 and Ex.A6, copy of summary report Ex.A7 and we believe and rely upon the same. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavits Ex.R1 and Ex.R10 of Sh.Amandeep Sethi and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R9 and we discard the same.

    11. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.

    12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted. The OPs-ICICI Bank is directed to pay Rs.26589/- i.e. the excess interest and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

  13. #43
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,356

    Default ICICI bank

    Sundarapushpan
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    Branch Manager ICICI bank

    Manager
    ...........Respondent(s)


    ORDER


    The complainant purchased a motor bike TVS Victor GX Reg. No.KL08/AH 489 during the year 2005. At the time of purchase the complainant paid Rs.6,000/- by RMP and the balance amount was arranged by the respondents. At the time of purchase the complainant had signed a number of printed papers without correctly understanding the nature and contents. The first respondent obtained 35 signed blank cheque leaves of Indian Overseas Bank, Vellangalur branch.


    Out of the above cheque leaves cheque No.979201 to 979205 were encashed by the respondents towards the instalments. He has paid 9 instalments at the rate of Rs.1381/-. Thus he paid Rs.18,429/- towards purchase of the vehicle. Subsequently the first respondent re-possessed the vehicle and stated that un-cashed cheque leaves will be returned within a period of 3 months. But were not returned. So a lawyer notice was issued demanding Rs.18,141/-. But there is no remedy so far. Hence this complaint.

    2. The respondent is absent and set exparte.

    3. To prove the case the complainant filed affidavit and the documents produced by him are marked as Exhibits P1 to P6.

    4.According to the complainant he is eligible to get back 30 cheque leaves as the balance cheque leaves remaining in the custody of respondents.

    5. There is no evidence to the contrary.

    6. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return 30 cheque leaves remaining in the custody of respondents with cost Rs.1,000/- within 2 months. No order as to compensation.

  14. #44
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,356

    Default ICICI Bank

    Shajahan Buhari
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

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





    ORDER



    The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant availed 2 credit card facilities from the opposite party, that the credit card numbers are 4477468341386006 and 4477468341386105, that complainant used the said credit card facility, that the maximum credit limit is Rs. 56,300/- for the two cards, that complainant made two bulk purchases - one for Rs. 19,000/- and another for Rs. 20,000/- and that complainant could not remit the said amount as agreed at the time of getting the card.


    Complainant requested for providing the facility to remit the due amount in instalment scheme. Opposite party acceded to the request and provided an amortization schedule. Thereafter complainant made further purchases for Rs. 17,300/-. As against the said purchase the complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 6,500/- on 06.02.2006, Rs. 2,000/- on 11.02.2006 and Rs. 2,000/- on 11.03.2006. Thereafter complainant received a statement of account on 29.05.2006 showing the total amount due as Rs. 75,723.67. Complainant immediately contacted the opposite party for knowing the true statement of account and also for a statement of account for the entire transaction between the complainant and the opposite party.


    Opposite party put forward a false and fictitious accounts. Opposite party was not willing to give a statement of account as demanded. On 29.06.2006 opposite party served another statement of account alleging that an amount of Rs. 78,316.29 is due from the complainant. Opposite party has no authority to charge such an exorbitant rate of interest for a period of one month. The maximum credit limit sanctioned by the opposite party is 56,300/-, but now the alleged claim of the opposite party is Rs. 78,316.29. Opposite party has violated all the relevant guidelines and rules of the Reserve Bank of India and is charging exorbitant rate of interest, other penal charges and other hidden charges under various heads in arriving at the said amount.


    The action of the opposite party is unfair, unjust and unreasonable. Complainant is willing to remit the outstanding EMI at any time. Opposite party has no authority to unilaterally withdraw the EMI scheme. The said withdrawal of instalment scheme is unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to furnish the entire statement of account relating the said credit card numbers and to adhere the EMI fixed as per the amortization schedule.

    Opposite party did not turn up inspite of service of notice. No version filed. Hence opposite party set exparte.

    The points that arise for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get detailed statement of accounts relating to credit cards?
    2. Whether the complainant is entitled to EMI Scheme offered by the opposite party?

    3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

    In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. Opposite party remained exparte. Opposite party did not file version or documents.

    Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant availed two credit cards from the opposite party vide card No. 4477468341386006 and 4477468341386105 respectively, that complainant utilised the maximum credit limit of Rs. 56,300/- for the said cards. Ext. P1 is the letter dated 29.12.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. As per Ext. P1 the credit limit maintained is Rs. 56,300/-. Ext. P1 is seen issued to Membership No. 4477468341386105. Submission by the complainant is that he had made two bulk purchases, one for Rs. 19,000/- and another for Rs. 20,000/-, that as he could not remit the said amounts as agreed at the time of getting the card, he requested for providing the facility to remit the due amount under instalment scheme, that opposite party acceded to the request and provided an amortization schedule vide letter dated 29.12.2005 and 13.01.2006. Exts. P2 and P3 are the said letters.


    As per Ext. P2, based on the request of the complainant for EMI Schedule against credit card 4477468341386006 amounted to Rs. 19,000/- opposite party has enclosed an amortization schedule showing the interest and principal components of Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs). As per the Amortization schedule complainant had to remit 12 EMIs of Rs. 1,741.67 each from 28.01.2006 to 28.12.2006. As per Ext. P3, based on the request of the complainant for EMI Scheme against credit card 4477468341386105 amounted to Rs. 20,000/-opposite party has enclosed an amortization schedule.


    As per the amortization schedule (Ext. P3) opposite party had to remit 24 EMI of Rs. 1,000/- each from 11.02.2006 to 11.01.2008. Complainant submits that in the meantime he made further purchases for Rs. 17,300/-, against which he remitted Rs. 6,500/- on 06.02.2006 and Rs. 2,000/- on 11.02.2006. Ext. P4 is the credit card statement dated 01.03.2006. As per Ext. P4 complainant is seen remitted the said cash payments on 06.02.2006 and 11.02.2006. As per transaction details stated in Ext. P4, EMI is seen remitted from 28.01.2006. Apart from receiving EMI principal and EMI interest, service tax is also levied from the complainant. Total amount due as on 01.03.2006 was Rs. 9,762.06. Ext. P5 is the credit card statement dated 29.03.2006, which shows transaction details from 11.03.2006 to 28.03.2009. Ext. P6 is the credit card statement which shows transaction details. Ext. P7 is the credit card statement dated 29.05.2006.


    The total amount due as on 29.03.2006 is Rs. 15200.2, whereas as per Ext. P6, the total amount due as on 29.05.2006 was Rs. 75,237.67. Ext. P8 is the credit card statement dated 29.06.2006. As per Ext. P8, total amount is Rs. 78,316.29. On going through Exts. P4 to P8 it is found that complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 6,500/- on 06.02.2006, Rs. 2,000/- on 11.02.2006, Rs. 2,000/- on 11.03.2006 and Rs. 2,000/- on 13.05.2006. That is altogether complainant remitted Rs. 12,500/- since 06.02.2006. Submission by the complainant is that the maximum credit limit sanctioned by the opposite party is Rs. 56,300/-, but now the alleged claim of the opposite party is Rs. 78,316.29 and that opposite party has violated all the relevant guidelines and rules of the RBI and is charging exorbitant rate of interest, other penal charges and other hidden charges under various heads in arriving at this huge amount.


    It is pertinent to note that as per the request of the complainant for the EMI scheme against the credit card amounts of Rs.19,000/- and of Rs. 20,000/-. Opposite party had issued amortization schedules, but the said amounts as per amortization schedule are not seen fully remitted by the complainant. Complainant himself admitted further purchases for Rs. 17,300/-, but no document seen furnished to corroborate that aspect. On going through Exts. P6, P7 and P8, it is seen that opposite party claimed total amount due of Rs. 75,723.67 as on 29.05.2006, which rose to Rs. 78,316.29 as on 29.06.2006 as per Ext. P8. The split up details are not shown in the above credit card statements.


    The annualised percentage rates on card products should be quoted by card issuers. In this context it is to be highlighted the guidelines issued by RBI. The Annual Percentage Rate (APR) and annual fee should be shown with equal prominence. The late payment charges including the method of calculation of such charges and the number of days should be prominently indicated. The manner in which the outstanding unpaid amount will be included for calculation of interest should also be specifically shown with minimum amount indicated to keep the card valid has been paid, it should be indicated in bold letters that the interest will be charged on the amount due after the due date of payment.


    These aspects may be shown in the welcome kit in addition to be shown in the monthly statement. A legend or notice to the effect that 'making only the minimum payment every month would result in the repayment stretching over..... years with consequent interest payment on your outstanding balance' should be prominently displayed in all monthly statements so as to caution the customers about the pitfalls in paying the minimum amount due. Evidently, complainant had remitted Rs. 12,500/- to opposite party and after adjusting the said remittances opposite party need to prepare credit card statement in view of the above said guidelines.


    Since complainant had remitted a sum of Rs. 12,500/- during the period when the EMI scheme as per amortization schedule was in force, opposite party ought to facilitate the same as per Exts. P2 & P3 to the complainant by charging reasonable rate of interest. No EMI facility was requested by the complainant in regard to the further purchases for Rs. 17,300/-. There is no material to show that EMI facility was granted by the opposite party for the said amount. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of evidence available on records, we hold that complainant is entitled to get the detailed statement of accounts relating to credit cards and opposite party is bound to facilitate EMI scheme to complainant as per Exts. P2 & P3.

    In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party shall raise detailed credit card statements relating to credit numbers 4477468341386006 and 4477468341386105 after adjusting the amounts of Rs. 12,500/- remitted by the complainant after the issuance of Exts. P2 and P3 amortization schedule dated 28.12.2005 and 11.01.2006. Opposite party shall adhere by Ext. P2 & P3 amortization schedule and charge interest as per guidelines issued by the RBI with respect to two purchases for Rs. 19,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-. For other purchases if any made by the complainant, than what are stated in Exts. P2 & P3 amortization schedules, complainant is liable to repay as per terms and conditions for payment of credit card dues.

    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

  15. #45
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,356

    Default ICICI bank

    . Marimuthu

    No.18, palani Gounder Street,

    Palladam. --- Complainant

    Vs.

    The Manager,

    ICICI Bank Ltd.,

    AEPC Building Ground Floor,

    3/1,3rd Street, Indira Nagar,

    Avinashi Road, Tirupur – 641 603. --- Opposite Party


    ORDER

    Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to return the complainants two wheeler or to pay Rs.35,000/- towards the cost of the vehicle and to pay Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and humiliation and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.



    The averments in the complaint are as follows:

    1. The Complainant on 31/08/07 he bought a "TVS STAR CITY" two wheeler in Bharath Autos, Palladam under hypothecation with ICICI Bank, Tirupur Branch paying an initial amount of Rs.18,079 and it was agreed that the balance amount will be paid in 23 EMIs vide Loan Agreement No. LTTRooo11286981 dated 6/09/07 and the two wheeler was registered in the name of the complainant in Tirupur RTO with No. TN 39 AP 5073. The complainant has paid 13 EMIs. In October 2008, due to recession he lost his job and in the month of November he went to his native place as his grand mother expired and stayed there for nearly a month to perform rites ant rituals because of which he was not able to pay the 13th 14th and 15th EMIs. On 15/12/08, two recovery agents of ICICI Bank visited his home after 9 Pm without giving any intimation. The said recovery agents had a key of his two wheeler and without giving any proper explanation they simply took away my complainant's vehicle.

    2. . When the complainant protested it, the said recovery agents used abusive language and insulted him before his wife and neighbors. In a letter dated 30/11/07 the RBI has laid down certain guidelines to all scheduled commercial bank with regard to loan recovery. (Ref.DBOD.No. Leg.6723/ 09.07.05/ 2007-08). In this incident the bank has acted totally contrary to those guidelines. A week later the seizure of his vehicle he visited ICICI Bank, Tirupur branch and met Mr.Yuvaraj, Collection Manager, Loans and informed him that he is willing to pay the balance dues and requested him to return back his vehicle. But the said Mr.Yuvaraj did not respond properly and simply informed the complainant that he would receive a registered letter from the bank regarding this and asked the complainant to come along with the registered letter. But the complainant has not received any such letter for a month after which he again visited the bank. And again he was informed the same. But he has not received any such letter at all till date.

    3. On 5/02/09 the said Yuvaraj informed the client that his two wheeler has been sold. When the complainant's wife questioned this, the said Yuvaraj used very ugly & abusive language against her before many people and he even took a table weight and threatened to attack her. The complainant and his wife felt ashamed and left the bank. On 11/02/09 the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party which was not responded accordingly. Hence this complaint.

    4. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with Ex.A1 to A6 was marked and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte. The complainant has also filed a memo containing payment particulars.



    The point for consideration is

    Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    ISSUE 1

    5. The case of the complainant is that he bought a TVS Star City Two wheeler under a hypothecation with ICICI Bank Tirupur Branch paid 13 EMIs, due to unavoidable circumstances unable to pay 13,14,15 EMIs, but on 15.12.08 to recovery Agents of ICICI Bank simply took away the complainant’s vehicle when protested the recovery agents used abuse language and insulted the complainant in front of his wife and neighbours. Subsequently the collection Manager Mr.Yuvaraj informed the complainant that his two wheeler has been sold. Inspite of legal notice the opposite party has not responded. Hence this complaint.

    6. Ex.A1 is the copy of the certificate of registration of the complainant’s two wheeler and Ex.A2 is the statement and A3 is the RBI guidelines and A4 is the legal notice. On perusal of Proof Affidavit and documents we are of the view that the complainant has proved his case. Moreover the opposite party has not informed about the selling price of the vehicle and further particulars regarding further payments. The act of opposite party sending the recovery agents on the late hours and taking the two wheeler of the complainant and insulting him before his wife and neighbours and selling the vehicle without any prior intimation to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

    7. The opp.party was served notice on 27.5.09 for the hearing, dt.16.6.09 The opposite party did not appear either in person or through his counsel, and he has not filed any version on his side till the expiry of statutory period.

    8. As per memo the complainant has paid initial payment of Rs.18,079 and 13 instalments at the rate of 1166 (13x1166)=15158 = Total Rs. 33,237

    9. In the result, we direct the opposite party to return the complainant’s two wheeler TN 39AP5073 or in the event of two wheeler being sold to pay Rs.33,237 being the cost of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.1000 as cost to the complainant within two months from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. ICICI Bank Ltd
    By Pawan goyal in forum Credit Card
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-24-2016, 02:06 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-03-2014, 03:39 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-16-2009, 12:28 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 12:14 AM
  5. ICICI Bank Ltd
    By Advocate.sonia in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 12:56 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •