Consumer Complaint No: 81/2008

Date of presentation: 30/05/2008

Date of decision: 18/11/2009
Shri Varun Mittal son of Sh. Krishan Mittal,

Resident of MIG 135, Sector-4, Parwanoo,

Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan (H.P.)

… Complainant

Versus

1. The ICICI Bank Ltd. through its Chairman/ Managing Director, Registered Office ( Land Mark) Race Course Circle Vadodara ( Maharashtra) Pin 390007 India.

2. ICICI Bank Ltd. through its Manager, ICICI Bank Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan (H.P.)

…Opposite Parties.
For the complainant: Mr. Vipen Pandit, Advocate.


For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Alok Bhardwaj, Advocate.


O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that the OPs No.1 & 2 entered into loan agreement on hire purchase basis with the complainant, on, 20.04.2005, hence, the OPs advanced a loan of Rs.5.90 lacs to the complainant, which was to be repaid in 60 equal instalments at the rate of Rs.11,425/-, commencing from 07.05.2005 till 07.02.2010. He further alleged that the OPs in order to succeed in their illegal acts and evil designs, bounced three cheques of the complainant in the month of May, 2007, December, 2007, and January, 2008, whereas, as per terms and conditions, of the loan agreement, if any cheque of loan instalment was not cleared or bounced, on account of insufficient funds, Rs.221/- was to be charged as cheque bouncing charges and the complainant was liable to pay over due/late payment charges at the rate of Rs.475/- for each delayed payment and the same was to be deposited in the branch of OP No.1. The complainant further proceeded to aver that the cheques aforesaid bounced not on account of any deficiency on the part of the complainant, but it was on account of negligence and irresponsible behaviour of the official of the OP No.1. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, contended that loan amount was payable on or before 7th of each month, through ECS, however, the complainant failed to get the ECS cleared on the due date even liable to pay bouncing charges on the same, as well, as, late payment charges thereof. They further contend that the amount of Rs.225/- was towards cheque bouncing charges and the remaining amount was for delayed payment. It is denied that Rs.475/- was charged for delayed payment. They further contend that no condition of the agreement dated 20.05.2004, has been violated by the OPs. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

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

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs in claiming over due charges quantified, at, Rs.675/- arising from purported bouncing of cheques, comprising, payments made by the complainant to the OPs, towards, defrayment of a loan provided, to, the complainant by it, for, purchasing a Mahindra Scorpio. A perusal of photo copy of the statement of accounts discloses, that, the loan instalmetns, as, deposited by the complainant for the months of May, December, 2007 and January, 2008 by way of cheques comprising amounts of loan instalments, had, resulted in the cheque, not, being honoured, not, on, account of insufficient funds, rather, on account of some ECS problem. The above endorsement in the statement of accounts of the complainant maintained with the OPs, fully repulses and benumbs the legality of their act to claim over due charges from the complainant, quantified, at, Rs.675/- arising from the purported bouncing of the cheques. The charges, hence, levied for the purported untenable reasons, constitutes, a, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, on the part of the OPs.

6. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OPs jointly and severally as follows:-

i) That the OPs, shall refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.1425/-;



ii) That the aforesaid amount, shall also carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 30.05.2008, till actual payment is made;



iii) That the OPs, shall also, pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant, on account of rendering deficient service;



iv) That the OPs, shall also pay Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation;



v) That the OPs, shall comply with this order within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;


7. The learned counsel for the contesting parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, whereas a certified copy of this order shall also be sent to the remaining OPs, through UPC for compliance. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Consumer Complaint No: 52/2007

Date of presentation: 10.05.2007

Date of decision: 11/11/2009.

Sh. Jagmohan Singh, S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh, R/o Vill. Chanyana, P.O. Bhelan, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour (H.P.)



… Complainant.

Versus

1. The Managing Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. ICICI Towers Bandra- Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051 India.

2. Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. SCO 180-182 Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

3. State Bank Of India Branch Pachhad, at Sarahan, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P. through its Branch Manager.



4. Post Master, Sub Post Office Sarahan, Tehsil. Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P. …Opposite Parties.





For the complainant: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.1 &2: Mr. V.R. Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.3: Mr. A.S. Shah, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.4: Mr. R.S. Rana A.A.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, he, is registered owner of Hydraulic Excavators, (JCB Machine), bearing registration No.HP-14-9165, HR-58-5750. It is averred that the OP No.2 had financed a loan amount of Rs.11,70,000/- towards agreement No.00000974619 and Rs.12,75,000/- towards agreement No.00001962433 and as per the conditions of the agreement, the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.52,362/- as EMI for the period February 2003 to December, 2003 and a sum of Rs.34,535/- as EMI for the period January 2004 to December, 2005. It is averred that the complainant had paid the entire loan amount to the OPs, but the OPs, despite receipt of the entire loan amount, did not issue NOC to him. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs No.1 & 2, in its version, to the complaint, contended that the OPs No.1 & 2 have no objection in issuing the NOC subject to the condition that the complainant clears his due to the tuneof Rs.66,966/- for loan account No.LQSLN00001962433 and Rs.14,240/- for loan account No.LQSLN0000974619. As such, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

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

5. The complainant and OPs No.1 & 2, do not wrangle over the fact of affording finance to the complainant. The complainant avers, that, despite his having made the entire payment to the OPs No.1 & 2, they failed to issue to him a no objection certificate. On the other hand, the OPs No.1 & 2, in their reply has contended that they have, no, objection in issuing NOC, in case complainant clears his due to the tune of Rs.66,966/- and Rs.14,240/-.

6. The complainant in support of his contention as asserted in the complaint, that, he have paid the entire loan amount to the OPs, has placed reliance on his detailed affidavit, wherein, he has deposed that he has paid the entire loan amount to the OPs No.1 & 2. In addition to this, he has also placed on record the copies of statement of account and copies of cheques. On perusal of the said documents, it is, revealed, that, nothing, is, payable by the complainant to the OPs No.1 & 2. The aforesaid documents, having remained uncontested and un-repulsed on record, on behalf of the OPs, hence, in the absence of specific rebuttal to the aforesaid, it, is, to be construed, that, the act of the OPs, in not issuing the no objection certificate to him, despite their having received the entire loan amount, from the complainant, , is, a clear cut deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7. Though, the OPs No.1 & 2, in their reply has contended that a sum of Rs.66,966/- and Rs.14,240/-, is, still due from the complainant, towards loan amount, yet, we are, not inclined to place reliance on the said contention as the said reply, is, not supported by any affidavit, hence, hence, it estops the OPs No.1 & 2, from contending the aforesaid sum, is, still recoverable from the complainant.

8. As a sequitor of the above, we, allow this complaint and direct the OPs No.1 & 2, to issue no objection certificate to the complainant within a period of forty five days , after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The OPs No.1 & 2, are also burdened with litigation cost of Rs.1500/-. Since, the OPs No.1 & 2 failed to issue NOC to the complainant, despite having received the entire loan amount from him, and has dragged the complainant to unnecessary litigation and subjected him to pain and suffering, as such, they are also saddled with damaged of Rs.3,500/-. The amount of litigation and damages, shall, also be paid to the complainant by the OPs, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Complaint No. 213/13.3.2009.

Date of order: 11.11.2009.

Gurpreet Singh son of Sh.Ujjagar Singh, resident of 190-D, Phase-1, urban Estate, Jamalpur, Ludhiana.
(Complainant)
Vs.
1. ICICI Bank Limited, SCO 146-147, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana (Punjab) through authorised signatory.

2. ICICI Bank Limited, Model Town Extension through authorised signatory.

(Opposite parties)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present:

Sh. M.S. Sethi Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. K.K. Bagai Advocate for the opposite parties.



O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant after opening saving bank account no. 001701526223 with OP Bank, obtained credit card vide account no.4477473833139004 from them. Complainant after using the credit card had been making regularly payments to the opposite party. On 26.2.2009, complainant had gone to Barely for business purpose and wanted to withdraw amount from his saving bank account by using the credit card, but was surprised to know that a sum of Rs. 26,499.40p had been withdrawn from his saving bank account against his credit card number. Complainant has further pleaded that he had entered into one time settlement with opposite party qua his credit card dues and paid Rs.23000/- on 13.11.2007, which was accepted as full and final amount for settlement by the opposite party. Consequently, approached opposite party and was conveyed that in the year 2007 being defaulter of credit card a sum of Rs.26,499.40 was withdrawn by them, from his account. This act of the opposite party is claimed by the complainant amounting to deficiency in service and negligence on their part. As nothing was due from him. By filing the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has sought refund of this amount, illegally withdrawn from his account, along with 18% interest per annum and litigation cost of Rs.7500/-.

2. Opposite party-Bank in defence justified withdrawal of amount of Rs.26,499.40 from saving bank account of the complainant, being due amount of credit card used by the complainant. It is pleaded that on 10.11.2007, outstanding balance of Rs.49,499.40p was payable by the complainant to opposite party on account of use of credit card, out of which he only paid Rs. 23,000/- on 13.11.2007 as part payment leaving balance of Rs.26,499.40p. He promised to pay the same, but failed to fulfill his promise. So, the complainant had only made part payment and not full payment of the amount due. While obtaining the credit card, complainant entered into an agreement with opposite party-Bank authorizing them to realize the outstanding dues of the credit card from his saving bank account. When complainant failed to pay Rs.26,499.40p despite promise, amount was legally withdrawn from his saving bank account to meet the dues of account of the credit card of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

3. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. The sole question to be determined is whether payment of Rs.23,000/- made by the complainant on account of use of credit card to the OP-Bank was in full and final settlement of the amount due on account of use of the credit card and thereafter nothing remained due from him. Consequently, opposite party resorted to unfair trade practice by withdrawing of their own, from saving bank account of the complainant, a sum of Rs. 26,499.40p.

6. Aforesaid matter has arisen in the light that it is not in dispute that complainant had saving bank account with OP-Bank and also obtained credit card from that bank. No doubt, under terms and conditions governing grant of credit card facility (Ex.C.3), opposite party empowered themselves to realise outstanding dues against use of the credit card from saving bank account of the complainant. Therefore, if found that any sum on account of credit card was due from the complainant to the opposite party, then in such events, they would be legally justified to withdraw their own, such due amount from his saving bank account or not.

7. But allegation of the complainant is that he in lieu of amount due for use of credit card had paid under one time settlement, a sum of Rs.23000/- vide receipt Ex.C.3 as full and final payment, so, nothing remained due towards opposite party. Hence, by withdrawing of their own, amount from his saving bank account, opposite party would be guilty of misconduct.

8. Answer to aforesaid aspect is found from letter Ex.C.4 dated 13.11.2007 sent by OP-Bank to the complainant. The letter reads as under:

“In view of the exceptional circumstances as explained by you, we confirm the acceptance of Rs.23000/- (Thirty Three Thousands only) in1 (One) instalment as full and final settlement on the above mentioned card account.

The above full and final settlement is being granted on a one-time basis without setting any precedent and timely payment is essence of this settlement offered to you.

In the even of the any cheque being dishonored or amount of any installment is not paid within aforesaid due dates, the above settlement would stand null & void, and you would be liable to pay the entire revised outstanding as per the current status.

This communication is expressly in reference to the above card account only and is strictly confidential.”



9. Bare reading of the letter Ex.C.4 spells that some discussion took place between OP-bank and the complainant and consequently by way of one time settlement, complainant paid Rs.23,000/- to OP-Bank vide receipt Ex.C.3 dated 13.11.2007. This amount was accepted by the opposite party as full and final settlement. This shows that settlement was granted to the complainant on one time basis subject to timely payment. So, it is evident and manifest that there was an agreement between the parties on 13.11.2007, under which one time settlement was granted for Rs.23,000/- only and discharge was granted to the complainant qua his credit card. But despite such agreement, opposite party on 26.2.2008 withdrew amount of Rs. 26,499.40p from saving bank account of the complainant, as is apparent from his saving bank account statement Ex.C.5. This is also defence of the opposite party that this amount was due from the complainant, as out of outstanding balance of Rs. 49,499.40p, he had paid only Rs.23,000/- on 13.11.2007. So, an amount of Rs.26,499.40p was due towards him, which they legitimately and legally withdrawn from his account.

10. This way we can not permit a most efficient and leaving private bank in the country to blow hot and cold at the same breath. Nor they can be permitted to change their position or promises to determent of its own customers. At one time, they entered into one time settlement with the complainant after accepting Rs.23,000/- as full and final payment to settle credit card account and wrote him letter dated 13.11.2007 (Ex.C4). But subsequently, in Feb. 2008, unauthorisedly and illegally without intimation to the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs. 26,499.40p from his account, which they were not entitled to recover from the complainant. So, resorting to unfair trade practice by the opposite parties is writ large on the face of the record.

11. Sequel to the discussions, we allow this complaint and consequently direct opposite parties to refund Rs.26,499.40p withdrew from his account with interest @9% per annum from 26.2.2008 till payment. For resorting to unfair trade practice and causing harassment to the complainant, ordered to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-(Rs. Five Thousands only) and litigation cost of Rs. 2000/-(Rs. Two Thousands only). Compliance of the order be made within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

COMPLAINT NO. 274/5.5.2008
DATE OF ORDER: 11.11.2009.
Amarjit Singh son of Sh. Gurdial Singh, resident of village Baleon, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana.
Vs.

1. ICICI Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its branch Manager.

2. M/s Garrison Motors, Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana through its Prop./partner.

3. Bhupesh Kumar working as Finance Agent having his office at Kochhar Market, Ludhiana.

(Opposite parties)


COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present:
Sh. P.P.S. Chahal Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Alok Mohindra Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. Gaurav Gupta Advocate for OP No.2

Complaint against OP No.3 dismissed for want of correct address.

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant from opposite party no.2-M/s Garrison Motors, purchased Tata Safari bearing registration no. PB-10-TC-0444, after arranging finance from OP NO.1-Bank through its financing agent Sh. Bhupesh Kumar-OP No.3. For purchase of the vehicle, advance amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- was paid in Feb. 2007 and Rs. 5000/- was given to opposite party no.2 as booking charges. Opposite party no.1 passed and cleared loan amount of Rs.6,90,000/- and through opposite party no.3 loan amount was delivered to opposite party no.2. Thereafter, paid two loan instalments to opposite party no.1. Despite having received entire price of the vehicle by opposite party no.2, they without cause or reason failed to deliver invoice, bills and other papers regarding sale of the vehicle to the complainant. Qua it, repeated requests were made to opposite party no.2, but to no effect. Consequently, for many months, complainant was not able to ply the vehicle for want of papers and also failed to get the vehicle registered in his name. Opposite party no.1 has not given details of the loan nor supplied particulars to him. Such act on the part of opposite party is claimed amounting to deficiency in service. Consequently, present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Has also claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to direction to provide him all relevant documents qua purchase of the vehicle.

2. Opposite party no.1-Bank in reply claimed that there is no deficiency in service on their part, so, their name deserves to be deleted from the array of opposite parties. As allegations against them are false and frivolous. They averred that complainant obtained vehicle loan of Rs.7,90,000/- vide loan account no. LAS ML-9544822. All details of the loan were given from time to time to the complainant. Now nothing is outstanding against this loan account from the complainant. As they have realized entire loan amount from the complainant. If opposite parties no.2 & 3 have not delivered sale documents to the complainant, they are not responsible for it.

3. Opposite party no.2 separately in reply claimed complaint not maintainable and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. They pleaded that complainant delayed payment of the vehicle in question despite undertaking given by him. While taking delivery of the vehicle, complainant undertook to make payment of the invoice amount or other dues within 15 days, failing which agreed to pay interest @2% per month to OP No.2-Company on the outstanding sum. A sum of Rs. 31,425/- as interest is due from the complainant on account of delayed payment. Total outstanding against him is Rs.31,680/-, which he was called to pay. But he failed to pay the same and consequently papers of the vehicle could not be delivered to him. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Because, complainant made part payments on various occasions. Though he had taken delivery of the vehicle on 3.1.2007 and last payment of Rs. 30,413/- was received from him on 26.9.2007. Under terms and conditions, he was liable to pay interest on the delayed payment.

4. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for parties, gone through file scanned the documents and other material on record.

6. Complainant claimed that loan of Rs.6,90,000./- was obtained form OP 1-Bank for purchase of the vehicle, however, they claimed in reply that this loan amount was Rs.7,90,000/- as mentioned in loan account statement Ex.R.1. But opposite party no.1 has taken specific plea that loan amount stand fully paid by the complainant, so, complaint against them is infructuous. In view of this submission, we do not enter into any controversy whether the loan amount was Rs.6,90,000/- or Rs.7,90,000/-./

7. The dispute is inter-related between the complainant and opposite parties no.2 & 3. Sale papers/relevant documents after sale of the vehicle, were to be handed over to the complainant by opposite party no.2. They claimed not handing over such documents as the complainant still owed an amount f Rs.31,680/- to them on account of delayed payment, by way of penalty and interest @24% per annum.

8. It is argued on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that delivery of the vehicle in question was obtained by the complainant on 3.1.2007. Total cost/price of the vehicle in question was Rs.9,89,638/-. That amount being cost of the car was not paid within 15 days of taking delivery of the vehicle. So, in view of the undertaking of the complainant, was liable to pay interest @24% per annum on account of delayed payment. Ex.R.14 is statement of account between them. As per statement Rs.5000/- was paid by the complainant on 27.12.2006. Another Rs.62,000/- were paid same day. Rs.650/- were also paid as processing fee on that day. As per invoice, price of the vehicle recorded is Rs.9,89,638/- and a sum of Rs.2,70,963/- shown to have been received from him in Feb,.2007 by way of cheque, which amount was debited, as cheque payment was stopped by the financer. Then a sum of Rs. 7,28,675/- was credited on 15.2.2007, Rs.53,500/- on 7.3.2007, Rs.30,000/- on 21.4.2007, Rs.25000/- on 26.6.07, Rs.37,500/- on 2.8.2007, 12,500/- on 13.8.2007, Rs.14,745 on 26.9.07 and again Rs. 30,413/- on 26.9.07. Therefore, this statement reflects that though the vehicle was sold by opposite party no.2 by to the complainant, but he made payment in instalments. Case of the complainant that had made advance payment of Rs.3,45,000/- in Feb. 2006 as advance money, is not fully born out on the record nor any proof qua it is adduced by the complainant. As per statement upto Feb.2007, complainant had only paid Rs.Rs.5,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.65000/- and Rs.12000/-.

9. Question is whether opposite party no.2 was entitled to charge penal interest @24% per annum due to delayed payment by the complainant. To show that they were empowered by the complainant to do so, have placed reliance on undertaking Ex.R.15 of the complainant. He after receiving delivery of the vehicle made himself responsible to pay interest @24% per annum on delayed payment, if not made within 15 days. Such payment as price of the car was not paid within 15 days. Hence, they would be entitled to charge interest as per undertaking Ex.R.15 of the complainant, from him.

10. Be stated that complainant had served legal notice Ex.C.1 dated 5.9.2007 to all the three opposite parties and posted the same under postal receipts Ex.C.2 and C.3. This notice remained unanswered. Complainant had intimated the opposite parties that price of the car had been paid, but despite it, sale certificate and documents necessary to get the vehicle registered in his name have not been made available to him. Though had also paid two loan instalments to opposite party no.2. Then called upon opposite partyno.2 to deliver documents and papers within 10 days of receipt of the letter. This important notice of the complainant remained un replied or unanswered by the opposite parties. Now, excuse taken by opposite party no.2 is that a sum of Rs.31,320/- by way of interest is due from the complainant, hence documents can not be delivered to him. The notice is dated 5.9.2007. As per admission of opposite party no.2, last payment qua price of the car was received from the complainant on 26.9.2007 when a sum of Rs.30,413/- was received on this account. It means, by the end of September,2007, nothing was due from the complainant to opposite party by way of interest as they received amount from him. But till October,2008, they mentioned amount of Rs.31,320/- due from the complainant. It means, they went on adding interest on the amount upto Oct.2008, though complainant had made last payment in September,2007. After such payment, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is mentioned due from the complainant on 26.9.07. Consequently, had opposite party no.2 answered registered notice Ex.C.1 dated 5.9.07 of the complainant, he would have known correct position qua amount payable by him to opposite party no.2. But they failed to make any communication to the complainant. Neither they made it clear to him despite receipt of notice that such and such amount still remains due from him towards them. By not answering his notice, certainly, opposite party no.2 would be guilty of misconduct and resorting to unfair trade practice. Because, it was incumbent upon them to have informed the complainant, in view of his notice Ex.C.1. Had they done so, amount of Rs.15000/- mentioned due on 26.9.2007 would not have swelled to become Rs.31,425/- upto 3.10.2008. Therefore, we feel that out of his amount of Rs.31,425/- mentioned due by way of interest to the complainant, his liability shall be restricted to Rs.15,000/- only. As fault is of opposite party no.2 in not conveying liability to the complainnt despite receipt of notice Ex.C.1.

11. For such deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2, we allow this complaint and as a result direct opposite party no.2-M/s Garrison Motors to make available invoice, sale certificate and all other documents or forms necessary to get the vehicle registered by the complainant in his name, on receipt of Rs.15000/-(Rs. Fifteen Thousands only)from him and the documents as mentioned above be made available to him within 10 days of receipt of the amount from the complainant. For thrusting this litigation on the complainant, opposite party no.2 ordered to pay compensation of Rs.6000/-(Rs. Six Thousands only) and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-(Rs. Two Thousands only). This amount of Rs.6000/-+2000/-=Rs.8000/- (Rs. Eight Thousands only) ordered to be adjusted against amount of Rs.15000/- payable by the complainant and consequently, liable to pay Rs.7000/-(Rs. Seven Thousands only) to the opposite party no.2 for obtaining all documents. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/186

Kuldeep Singla
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

ICICI Bank Ltd

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


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) CC.No.186 of 10.08.2009 Decided on: 13.11.2009 Kuldeep Singla son of Sh. Chiman Lal Singla, 405-A, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda. ……..Complainant. Versus 1. ICICI Bank Ltd., through its Chairman person, ICICI Bank Towers C-15, G-Block, Bandra Kurta Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Bathinda, through its Manager, ICICI Bank, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda. ………Opposite parties. Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Vimal Singla, counsel for the complainant alongwith complainant in person. For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties. QUORUM Sh. George, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member. ORDER GEORGER, PRESIDENT:- 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against opposite parties that he has maintaining his Saving Bank Account No. 016301531319 with opposite parties since 2004. On 05.08.2009, he issued a cheque No. 681438 for Rs. 5,875/- to The Citi Finacial Consumer Finance India Ltd., towards his loan installment, and he deposited the amount with opposite parties, and had sufficient amount to honour the said cheque amount. On the said date, opposite parties illegally dishonoured the said cheque, due to the reason (In sufficient funds), and illegally debited Rs. 386/- as dishonouring charges from his Saving Bank Account. Due to dishonouring his cheque, M/s. The Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., charged Rs. 750/- as dishonouring charges, as late payment charges without any fault on his part. Due to the dishonouring of the cheque his image was tarnished as a defaulter in payment of installment to his financer. He made repeated requested to opposite parties to credit Rs. 386/-, which were illegally debited from his Saving Bank Account, and also pay him Rs. 750/-, which he had to pay on account of dishonouring of his cheque to M/s. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. He has also claimed an amount of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment, loss of reputation, mental tension and inconvenience alongwith cost of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. Opposite parties contested the allegations raising objections that complaint is not maintainable; complaint is filed on false facts; complainant has no locus-standi, or cause of action. The complainant has concealed the material facts, as the cash amount of Rs. 6,500/-, was deposited by the complainant on 05.08.2009 at 10:58:47 seconds, and this amount was credited in his Saving Bank Account at 10:58:55 seconds, and the cheque No.681438 dt. 05.08.2009 was presented for clearance before 9:58 A.M., and as such, at the time of presentation of cheque, there was insufficient balance in the Account of complainant, and as such, the cheque was rightly dishonoured, but the complainant, for the reasons best known to him, has concealed this fact from the Hon’ble Forum, and even cheque return charges, were also charged, but lateron the complainant made request for waiver of charges, and as such, as a gesture of goodwill, the charges were waived of, and now the complainant with intention to harass and humiliate the opposite parties by suppressing through the facts, has filed the present false complaint. 3. On merits also, while denying all the allegations of the complainant, opposite parties have pleaded the same facts as has been pleaded in the legal objections as referred to above. 4. Complainant in order to prove the allegations, filed his own affidavit dt. 23.10.2009 Ex.C-1, and also brought on record, copies of account statement as on 01.04.09 to 05.08.09 Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2; copy of email dt. 08.08.09 Ex.C-4, and copy of e-mail dt. 13.08.09 Ex.C-5. 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh. Amit Ahuja, Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Bathinda, dt. 08.10.09 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, copy of transaction inquiry dt. 05.08.09 Ex.R-2, and copy of summary of statement Ex.R-3. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the entire record of the case carefully. 7. It appears from the documents Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 that opposite parties received an amount of Rs. 6,500/- by cash in the account of the complainant on 05.08.2009, and the same was credited in his account at 10:58:55 seconds A.M., where as Ex.R-3 reveals that the cheque dt. 05.08.2009, for Rs. 5,875/- was dishonoured due to insufficient balance at 9:58 A.M. This time is given at the end of the summary, and not against the columns showing rejections of the cheque, due to insufficient Account Balance. 8. It is an admitted fact that complainant is having his Saving Bank Account with opposite parties since 2004. It is a general practice for all the Nationalize Banks, and when any cheque is received for clearance, the Clearing Bank always take precaution and afford sufficient time i.e. atleast by 11 A.M., so as to prevent any illegal dishonouring of any cheque of a genuine party. In bouncing/dishonouring of a cheque due to insufficient account balance not only invite civil liability, but also may involves an innocent payee for prosecution under Section 138 of The Negotiable instruments Act, 1881. The dishonouring of the cheque in the early hours without waiting, or affording sufficient time to the complainant, to make sufficient account balance to meet the requirements of the cheque in his account, it self amounts to deficiency in service. 9. It appears that when the complainant lodged a complaint with opposite parties, regarding wrong dishonouring of his cheque, opposite parties instead of admitting the mistake tried to justify the illegal act by writing letter dt. 05.08.2009 Ex.C-4 to the complainant, wherein opposite parties have asserted that “Please note that for the clearance of cheque\ECS opening day balance is considered. As per our records, opening day balance as on August 05, 2009 is Rs. 827. But the cheque 681438 has been presented for an amount of Rs. 5,875 which has been rejected for the reason ‘Insufficient funds’. Hence, the charges of Rs. 350 and 10.3% Service Tax is applicable. We will be unable to service your request for the reversal of the charges.” The complainant thereafter, filed the present complaint on 10.08.2009, and thereafter, immediately on 13.08.2009, opposite parties in reference to e-mail of the complainant sent him letter on 13.08.2009 Ex.C-5, wherein the charges, which were deducted from the Saving Bank Account of the complainant, due to dishonouring of the cheque were credited in the account of the complainant. The record reveals that the complainant deposited the funds in his account on the day for which, he issued a cheque, and on the day, he had sufficient funds in his account to pay the cheque amount. Opposite parties apparently made the dishonour entries in the early hours of the day of saving accounts with no other motive, but earning dishonouring charges Rs. 386/- as the account statement of the complainant Ex.C-1 reveals that a cash Rs. 6,500/- credited in the account of the complainant, first and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 386/- were debited, due to dishonouring of the cheque from his account. Meaning thereby, that dishonouring of the cheque was resorted to despite the fact, that the complainant had sufficient balance amount before his cheque of Rs. 5,875/- was dishonoured. If the cheque of the complainant would have been dishonoured as per the entries in Ex.R-3, the Account Statement Ex.C-1 would have shown debit of Rs. 386/- from the account of the complainant before credit of Rs. 6,500/-. 9. It appears, that opposite parties have resorted to unfair trade practice by claiming that for clearance of cheque\ECS opening day balance is considered, laying down such the conditions, itself amounts to “deficiency in service” as well as “unfair trade practice”. 10. We accordingly, direct opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 750/-, which the complainant had to pay, due to dishonouring of his cheque to M/s. The Citi Finacial Consumer Finance India Ltd., alongwith interest @ 9% from 05.08.2009 till the amount is credited in the account of the complainant. The manner in which, the complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment, mental tension, agony and inconvenience, and he has been brought to disrepute by dishonouring his cheque before M/s. The Citi Finacial Consumer Finance India Ltd. and others. The complainant is, definitely, entitled for an adequate amount of compensation, which we assess in the facts and circumstances of the case at Rs. 10,000/- alongwith cost of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-. 11. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date receipt of copy of this order. 12. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be indexed and consigned. Pronounced (GEORGE) 13.11.2009 PRESIDENT (DR. PHULINDER PREET) MEMBER (AMARJEET PAUL) MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) CC.No.186 of 10.08.2009 Decided on: 13.11.2009 Kuldeep Singla son of Sh. Chiman Lal Singla, 405-A, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda. ……..Complainant. Versus 1. ICICI Bank Ltd., through its Chairman person, ICICI Bank Towers C-15, G-Block, Bandra Kurta Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Bathinda, through its Manager, ICICI Bank, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda. ………Opposite parties. Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Vimal Singla, counsel for the complainant alongwith complainant in person. For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties. QUORUM Sh. George, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member. ORDER GEORGER, PRESIDENT:- 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against opposite parties that he has maintaining his Saving Bank Account No. 016301531319 with opposite parties since 2004. On 05.08.2009, he issued a cheque No. 681438 for Rs. 5,875/- to The Citi Finacial Consumer Finance India Ltd., towards his loan installment, and he deposited the amount with opposite parties, and had sufficient amount to honour the said cheque amount. On the said date, opposite parties illegally dishonoured the said cheque, due to the reason (In sufficient funds), and illegally debited Rs. 386/- as dishonouring charges from his Saving Bank Account. Due to dishonouring his cheque, M/s. The Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., charged Rs. 750/- as dishonouring charges, as late payment charges without any fault on his part. Due to the dishonouring of the cheque his image was tarnished as a defaulter in payment of installment to his financer. He made repeated requested to opposite parties to credit Rs. 386/-, which were illegally debited from his Saving Bank Account, and also pay him Rs. 750/-, which he had to pay on account of dishonouring of his cheque to M/s. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. He has also claimed an amount of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment, loss of reputation, mental tension and inconvenience alongwith cost of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. Opposite parties contested the allegations raising objections that complaint is not maintainable; complaint is filed on false facts; complainant has no locus-standi, or cause of action. The complainant has concealed the material facts, as the cash amount of Rs. 6,500/-, was deposited by the complainant on 05.08.2009 at 10:58:47 seconds, and this amount was credited in his Saving Bank Account at 10:58:55 seconds, and the cheque No.681438 dt. 05.08.2009 was presented for clearance before 9:58 A.M., and as such, at the time of presentation of cheque, there was insufficient balance in the Account of complainant, and as such, the cheque was rightly dishonoured, but the complainant, for the reasons best known to him, has concealed this fact from the Hon’ble Forum, and even cheque return charges, were also charged, but lateron the complainant made request for waiver of charges, and as such, as a gesture of goodwill, the charges were waived of, and now the complainant with intention to harass and humiliate the opposite parties by suppressing through the facts, has filed the present false complaint. 3. On merits also, while denying all the allegations of the complainant, opposite parties have pleaded the same facts as has been pleaded in the legal objections as referred to above. 4. Complainant in order to prove the allegations, filed his own affidavit dt. 23.10.2009 Ex.C-1, and also brought on record, copies of account statement as on 01.04.09 to 05.08.09 Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2; copy of email dt. 08.08.09 Ex.C-4, and copy of e-mail dt. 13.08.09 Ex.C-5. 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh. Amit Ahuja, Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Bathinda, dt. 08.10.09 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, copy of transaction inquiry dt. 05.08.09 Ex.R-2, and copy of summary of statement Ex.R-3. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the entire record of the case carefully. 7. It appears from the documents Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 that opposite parties received an amount of Rs. 6,500/- by cash in the account of the complainant on 05.08.2009, and the same was credited in his account at 10:58:55 seconds A.M., where as Ex.R-3 reveals that the cheque dt. 05.08.2009, for Rs. 5,875/- was dishonoured due to insufficient balance at 9:58 A.M. This time is given at the end of the summary, and not against the columns showing rejections of the cheque, due to insufficient Account Balance. 8. It is an admitted fact that complainant is having his Saving Bank Account with opposite parties since 2004. It is a general practice for all the Nationalize Banks, and when any cheque is received for clearance, the Clearing Bank always take precaution and afford sufficient time i.e. atleast by 11 A.M., so as to prevent any illegal dishonouring of any cheque of a genuine party. In bouncing/dishonouring of a cheque due to insufficient account balance not only invite civil liability, but also may involves an innocent payee for prosecution under Section 138 of The Negotiable instruments Act, 1881. The dishonouring of the cheque in the early hours without waiting, or affording sufficient time to the complainant, to make sufficient account balance to meet the requirements of the cheque in his account, it self amounts to deficiency in service. 9. It appears that when the complainant lodged a complaint with opposite parties, regarding wrong dishonouring of his cheque, opposite parties instead of admitting the mistake tried to justify the illegal act by writing letter dt. 05.08.2009 Ex.C-4 to the complainant, wherein opposite parties have asserted that “Please note that for the clearance of cheque\ECS opening day balance is considered. As per our records, opening day balance as on August 05, 2009 is Rs. 827. But the cheque 681438 has been presented for an amount of Rs. 5,875 which has been rejected for the reason ‘Insufficient funds’. Hence, the charges of Rs. 350 and 10.3% Service Tax is applicable. We will be unable to service your request for the reversal of the charges.” The complainant thereafter, filed the present complaint on 10.08.2009, and thereafter, immediately on 13.08.2009, opposite parties in reference to e-mail of the complainant sent him letter on 13.08.2009 Ex.C-5, wherein the charges, which were deducted from the Saving Bank Account of the complainant, due to dishonouring of the cheque were credited in the account of the complainant. The record reveals that the complainant deposited the funds in his account on the day for which, he issued a cheque, and on the day, he had sufficient funds in his account to pay the cheque amount. Opposite parties apparently made the dishonour entries in the early hours of the day of saving accounts with no other motive, but earning dishonouring charges Rs. 386/- as the account statement of the complainant Ex.C-1 reveals that a cash Rs. 6,500/- credited in the account of the complainant, first and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 386/- were debited, due to dishonouring of the cheque from his account. Meaning thereby, that dishonouring of the cheque was resorted to despite the fact, that the complainant had sufficient balance amount before his cheque of Rs. 5,875/- was dishonoured. If the cheque of the complainant would have been dishonoured as per the entries in Ex.R-3, the Account Statement Ex.C-1 would have shown debit of Rs. 386/- from the account of the complainant before credit of Rs. 6,500/-. 9. It appears, that opposite parties have resorted to unfair trade practice by claiming that for clearance of cheque\ECS opening day balance is considered, laying down such the conditions, itself amounts to “deficiency in service” as well as “unfair trade practice”. 10. We accordingly, direct opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 750/-, which the complainant had to pay, due to dishonouring of his cheque to M/s. The Citi Finacial Consumer Finance India Ltd., alongwith interest @ 9% from 05.08.2009 till the amount is credited in the account of the complainant. The manner in which, the complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment, mental tension, agony and inconvenience, and he has been brought to disrepute by dishonouring his cheque before M/s. The Citi Finacial Consumer Finance India Ltd. and others. The complainant is, definitely, entitled for an adequate amount of compensation, which we assess in the facts and circumstances of the case at Rs. 10,000/- alongwith cost of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-. 11. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date receipt of copy of this order. 12. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be indexed and consigned. Pronounced (GEORGE) 13.11.2009 PRESIDENT (DR. PHULINDER PREET) MEMBER (AMARJEET PAUL) MEMBER

CC. No. 146 of 06-07-2009
Decided on : 10-11-2009
Mukhtiar Singh S/o Sh. Balwant Singh, R /o H. No. 22545, Street No. 18, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.
.... Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Bank Ltd., Near Clock Tower Building, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lomboard General Insurance Company Ltd., Ist Floor, Shorva Complex, Power House Road, Bathinda through its Branch Manager
... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Sh. George, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member


For the Complainant : Sh. Sandeep Singh Jeeda, counsel for the complainant.

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No. 1

Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 2.

O R D E R

GEORGE, PRESIDENT

1.

The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the opposite parties with the allegations that he is maintaining Bank account with opposite party No. 1 and was provided Credit Card facility vide Credit Card No. 4477465008081003. The opposite party No. 2 is the sister concern of opposite party No. 1 and the opposite parties in connivance with each other and without the consent of the complainant issued some Insurance policies in the name of the complainant and started to deduct the amount of installments of premium from his account. However, the complainant succeeded to get the said policies cancelled and he was assured by the opposite parties that the deducted amount will be adjusted in his account. On scrutiny of credit card statement dated 21-01-2009, the complainant found that one entry on 8-1-09 and 13-1-09 each and four entries on 20-1-09 were made in his account and on enquiry it was told to him that some Insurance policies have been issued in his name whereas the said Insurance policies have already been got cancelled by him and now the opposite parties started to deduct the amount from his account on account of service tax. The opposite parties have also deducted an amount of Rs. 5251/- as bank collection payment on dated 28-04-09 which is arbitrary and without any cause. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to correct his statement of account and adjust the amount which has been deducted without any reason and his liability, but there was no response from them. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to adjust the amount which has been deducted from his account without his consent on account of premium and service tax, alongwith interest 24% P.A. and to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment.
2.

The opposite party No. 1 filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable as it is time barred; this Forum has no jurisdiction as dispute relates to settlement of account; the complainant has concealed material facts and the complaint is filed on false facts.

On merits, it has been denied that there is any connivance between opposite party No. 1 & 2. It has been submitted that both the opposite parties are independent companies. The complainant with free will had purchased Insurance policies through voice recording system and authorised to debit the premium amount through credit card. Later on, the complainant opted for cancellation of policies and as such, opposite party No. 2 cancelled the policies and since second policy was cancelled after three months, he had to make payment as per rules and he paid the amount through credit card. His credit card limit was Rs. 59,000/- which was exceeded and he had to make the payment of interest on excess limit which he did not pay. The entries in statement dated 21-01-2009 were not on account of insurance charges and service charges rather late payment charges, services tax and service charges @ 2.75% P.M which are payable by the complainant as per declaration given by him at the time of issuance of credit card. It has been submitted that Rs. 5251/- were transferred from saving account of complainant because he did not make the payment of due amount of credit card and still Rs. 1,32,529/- were due against the complainant.
3.

The opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply taking similar legal objections as has been taken by opposite party No. 2. On merits it has been denied that opposite party No. 2 issued Insurance policies inconnivance with opposite party No. 1. It has been submitted that the complainant got two Insurance policies voluntarily of his own accord and consent and his consent was recorded in Voice Recording System (VRS). As per latest system, there is no need to submit any proposal form as the policies are issued through Internet and through telephone etc. As desired by the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 cancelled the policies and refunded the amount to complainant. Since the second policy was cancelled after three months from policy start date, therefore the complainant got short refund.
4.

In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopies of credit card statements Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-50, photocopy of letter dated 30-05-09 Ex. C-51 and another affidavit of complainant Ex. C-52.
5.

To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties produced on record affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Dhul, Manager (Legal) Ex. R-1, copies of calculation sheets Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-3 and affidavit of Sh. Veer Bhadar, attorney ICICI Bank Ltd., Ex. R-4.
6.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the entire record of the case, it appears that the complainant started maintaining a bank account with opposite party No. 1 since 2003. The opposite party No. 2 is an Insurance Company and is sister concern of opposite party No. 1. According to the complainant both the opposite parties in connivance with each other, started deducted some amount from his account maintained by opposite party No. 1 and on enquiries, he was informed that the amount has been deducted towards some of the Insurance policies. On the objection raised by the complainant, the amount was refunded and credited in his bank account.
7.

The complainant now has fresh grievance that on seeking his credit card statements dated 21-01-2009, 08-01-2009, 13-01-2009 and 20-01-2009, he found that certain amount was deducted from his bank account and on enquiries, he was told that some Insurance policies have been issued in his name and the amount is being deducted as premium. He has also claimed that an amount of Rs. 5251/- has been deducted on 28-04-09 from his bank account as bank collection payment and he was intimated regarding the deduction of premium by way of post giving statement of account dated 21-05-2009.
8.

The record reveals that the amount deducted from the account of the complainant does not pertain to any premium of Insurance policy rather the deductions are on account of late payment fee, service tax, interest charges and overlimit fee etc., The credit card statements Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-51 and especially Ex. C-47 to Ex. C-49 reveal that complainant has exceeded his credit limit beyond all proportions as against an amount of Rs. 27,090/-, an amount of Rs. 1,22,430.24 is being reflected in his credit card statement Ex. C-47 whereas similar kind of situation is being reflected in his credit card statements for the months of March and April, 2009 Ex. C-48 & Ex. C-49 respectively. The complainant has not been able to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence that opposite party No. 1 has deducted any unreasonable amount from his account and the same is being credited to the account of opposite party No. 2 on account of any Insurance policy.
9.

The perusal of record reveals that there appears to be no circumstance to draw any inference that either of the two opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice or they are responsible for causing any deficiency in service. The complaint filed by the complainant appears to be totally frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be indexed and consigned.

C.C.NO.4 7/2009
Between:
S.Seshagiri Rao,

S/o Tavitiyya,

Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

55 years, R/o MIG-III,

B-74, VUDA Colony, Kanapaka,

Vizianagaram Town & District. …….Complainant.
And

1. The Manager,

I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd.,

Siripuram, Visakhapatnam Town,

Visakhapatnam District,

Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Manager,

I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd.,

N.C.S. Road, vizianagaram. ……Opposite Parties.

This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.Appala Raju and Sri N.K.Raju, Advocates for Complainant and of SriU.S.V.Prasad and Sri P.Sukumar Rao, Advocates for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, praying this For a to direct the opposite parties to make payment of the illegally collected amount of Rs.3,527.64ps from the complainant and accrued interest of Rs.788/- from the payment date of 07-12-2007 till today, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.3,000/-.

The complainant submits that he borrowed an amount as housing loan from the 1st opposite party and he repaid the entire balance of Rs.1,61,615/- by way of D.D. and the same was admitted by the opposite parties. As seen from the particulars given the fore closure charges are added by the opposite parties and collected the same towards fore closure charges for which they are not entitled to collect as such they may be ordered to repay with interest and costs.

Opposite party filed counter denying all the allegations and further submits that the complaint bad in law and not maintainable on facts. The opposite party further submits that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.3,527.64ps towards fore closure charges and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Both parties filed their affidavit in support of their contentions.

Heard both sides. Arguments closed. Posted for Orders. Orders are as follows.

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that against law the opposite party collected fore closure charges of Rs.3,527.64ps and there is also no agreement on that effect. The opposite party submits that there is an agreement in pursuance of the agreement, the opposite party collected fore closure charges But the alleged agreement between the parties not filed by the opposite party as such the contention of the opposite party that there is an agreement between the parties cannot be accepted.

As per AIR 1994 SC 787 equivalent to 1993 (III) CPJ, Page-7 para-2 in Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K. Gupta.

Para-2: To begin with the preamble of the act, which can afford useful assistance to ascertain the legislative intention, it was enacted, ‘to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers’. Use of the word “protection” furnishes key to the minds of makers of the act. Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to achieve this objective have to be construed in this light without departing from the settled view that a preamble cannot control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. In fact the law meets long felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory. Various legislations and regulations permitting the state to intervene and protect interest of the consumers have become a heaven for unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not move or it moves ineffectively, inefficiently and for reasons which are not necessary to be stated. The importance of the act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, ‘a network of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘producers have secured power’ to ‘rob the rest’ and the might of public bodies which are degenerating in to store house of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting for it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot.

The learned counsel for the complainant cited a Judgment Reported in III 2008 CPJ Page 178 between M.Anees-Ur-Rahman & Ors - Appellants Versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd & Ors – Respondents the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.

Para 5: The National Commission is also of the view that the Financial Institutions which advance loan should not collect any pre-closure charges if the loan is discharged by the borrower before the agreed period. Hence, we hold that the OPs are liable to refund Rs.14,47,000 to the complainants with interest.

Para 7: Before parting with this, we express that we are coming across several cases where the Financial Institutions are charging certain charges in the form of ‘Service Charges’, ‘pre-closure charges’, etc., without rendering any service even in cases where loan is not sanctioned for some reason and where loan is pre-closed. Instead of charging interest on pro rata basis the Financial Institutions are charging interest on the entire loan amount. This is unjust enrichment.

In view of the above observation of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission opposite party have no right to collect fore closure charges when the borrower paid the amount in advance i.e., before the expiry of the due dates. In view of the same the act of the opposite party i.e., collecting fore closure charges amounts to deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice.

Accordingly complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.3,527-64ps with interest at 12% per annum of payment till the date of filing complaint and from the date of filing of complaint till the date of realization. Opposite party further directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) inclusive of advocate fee of Rs.750/- (Rupees seven hundred fifty only). The complainant is not entitled for compensation. The opposite party further directed to pay the said amount within 45 days from this date.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 11th day of November, 2009.

CC.No.70 of 2008

BETWEEN:

Kotha Sulochana,

W/o Late Venkateswarlu,

R/o D.No.26-19-83,

3rd cross, Main Road, A.T. Agraharam,

Guntur. …Complainant

and

1. The Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank Limited,

2nd lane, Lakshmipuram,

Guntur.

2. 31 Infotech Limited,

Maratha Mandir Annexe,

Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Mumbai central,

Mumbai-8. …Opposite Parties

This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 25.11.2009 in the presence of Sri V. Krishna Nand, advocate for complainant and of Sri D.V. Sai Nath, Advocate for 1st opposite party and of Sri G.S.K. Srinivas, Advocate for 2nd opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri T. Anjaneyulu, President:- This complaint is filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying a sum of Rs.6,625/- towards maturity amount of Tax Saving Bond with interest thereon and other amounts towards compensation, legal expenses etc aggregating in all Rs.20,680/- from opposite parties.

The brief facts of case are that, the husband of complainant namely K. Venkateswarlu during his lifetime purchased tax saving bond-03, 2002–TSB–three on 09-05-2002. The due date for maturity of said bond is on 23-08-05. Thereafter, the said Venkateswarlu died on 28-09-04. Subsequently, 2nd opposite party sent redemption warrant in favour of deceased K. Venkateswarlu to his old address, but postal authorities redirected the cover to new address. But the cover was not delivered as bond holder is no more. Noticing the same complainant approached 1st opposite party and sent all necessary papers through 1st opposite party for settlement of claim. But opposite parties did not take any steps. On 21-03-06 complainant got issued a registered notice requesting 2nd opposite party to settle the said claim. After receiving lawyer notice, 2nd opposite party sent some papers to complainant along with letter dated 19-04-06 informing that complainant’s husband had not appointed nominee in the said bond. The 2nd opposite party requested complainant to resubmit the same along with documents mentioned therein duly notarized. After receiving said letter, complainant sent all documents notarized through registered post with acknowledgement on 16-04-07. After that 2nd opposite party returned one document (deed of relinquishment) to complainant stating that the said document is not attested by notary. After receiving said deed of relinquishment, complainant sent it duly notarized through RP with acknowledgment on 06-06-07 and the same was acknowledged. Later, 2nd opposite party returned all documents to complainant along with letter dated 20-08-07 stating that 2nd opposite party has not received relinquishment deed and also returned all other documents without taking any action. This amounts to deficiency of service. There are clear latches and willful hurdles on the part of opposite parties in settlement of claim. The 2nd opposite party collected amount and failed to pay maturity bond amount within time. Hence the complaint.

The 1st opposite party filed its version stating that 2nd opposite party is alone competent authority to settle the claim of complainant. The complainant submitted some documents in support of her claim at the branch of 1st opposite party and they were immediately forwarded to 2nd opposite party, thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. The 1st opposite party is not involved in the transactions and correspondence that took place between complainant and 2nd opposite party and in respect of further submission of documents and their return. This opposite party is not liable to pay any damages or any other amounts and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

The 2nd opposite party has filed its affidavit/version denying all allegations made in the complaint. It is admitted that late K. Venkateswarlu purchased a tax saving bond with its maturity date on 23-08-05 and before maturity said Venkateswarlu is reported to have died on 28-09-04. The death was not informed to this opposite party and also with regard to change of address as such warrant was sent to postal address as per records, it was returned as there was ‘no such addressee’.

This opposite party redeem even without calling for original bond certificate from investors after obtaining necessary statutory approvals. All investors were made known about statutory approvals and redemption certificates about change of address before the date 23-07-05. Therefore, redemption warrant was sent to the address as per records, it was returned by postal authorities. Again as per normal practice an intimation dated 14-09-05 was sent to bond holder at the address registered with this party informing them of undelivered article and requesting them to intimate change of address. The complainant kept quite without responding to the said letter. Later this opposite party received a legal notice from one V. Krishna Nand advocate informing about death of K. Venkateswarlu and a reply was sent informing complainant to submit all information and required documents noted therein for making a claim in favour of legal heirs as there was no nomination. All documents were to be duly completed and notarized as per instructions therein. Whereas, complainant had submitted the following documents,

a) Application form,

b) Affidavit on Rs.100/-

c) Indemnity Bond on Rs.200/-

d) Deed of relinquishment on Rs.20/-

e) Attested copy of death certificate of K. Venkateswarlu

f) Copy of Bond certificate

After scrutiny of above documents, opposite party observed that deed of relinquishment was not attested by notary public. Therefore, vide its letter dated 17-05-07 returned the same for doing needful and also intimated that other documents were retained to avoid any loss in postal transit. However, till date this opposite party has not received his relinquishment deed duly attested by notary. Complainant failed to produce postal acknowledgment duly singed by this opposite party in token of having receipt of the said deed of relinquishment.

It is further submitted that since all particulars as required by this opposite party were not submitted by complainant inspite of sufficient time, there was no other option, as such all other documents were returned to complainant with a request to submit the same along with deed of relinquishment in order to enable them to issue fresh redemption warrant to legal heir, unless, the documents as required by it, which are not received, such a claim cannot be dealt with.

It is further submitted that even today this opposite party is ready to process application of complainant provided all particulars and documents as per letter dated 19-04-06 as well as 17-05-07 are sent. As such, there is no deficiency of service on their part.

The complainant filed this complaint with latches on her part in not submitting correct documents even after getting information. The claim is also time barred as it is more than 3 years. Therefore, this opposite party is not liable to pay any amount either towards maturity amount. Without submission of appropriate documents as mentioned above, interest on the amount, compensation for mental agony, suffering and legal expenses i.e., in all Rs.20,600/- as claimed by complainant. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

Both sides have field their respective affidavits. On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-8 are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties.

Now points for determination are that,

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party in sending redemption warrant in favour of complainant?

2. Whether complainant is entitled for amount as sought for?

3. To what relief?



POINT No.1:- The dispute is in respect of maturity amount of tax saving bond purchased by the husband of complainant. The maturity date is 23-08-05. But unfortunately, bond holder namely K. Venkateswarlu died one year prior to its maturity i.e., on 28-09-04. As per practice, the opposite parties have sent redemption warrant through cheque dated 23-08-05 for Rs.6625/- in the name of deceased K. Venkateswarlu at his address noted in their records. As the same could not be served at given address, opposite parties sent intimation dated 14-09-05 vide Ex.A-1 informing that they received back undelivered article and required to inform present address. But no action has been taken by complainant except issuing legal notice dated 21-03-06 vide Ex.A-3 through her advocate for settlement of claim. Thereupon, opposite parties sent a letter dated 19-04-06 requiring complainant to send documents as listed therein since deceased did not mention the name of nominee in the bond and further they came to know about the death of bond holder through legal notice only vide Ex.A-4. Accordingly, complainant has furnished required information by submitting application for transmission of bond, her affidavit on non judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-, indemnity bond on non judicial paper of Rs.100/- singed by all legal heirs including copy of death certificate vide Ex.A-5 postal receipt. Thereafter, on 17-05-07 she has received letter vide Ex.A-6 from opposite party communicating that they have received all required documents, but deed of relinquishment was not attested by notary as such, the same is returned back for notarization, while retaining other documents. The complainant claims that accordingly she has submitted relinquishment deed duly notarized to opposite parties vide acknowledgement dated 06-06-07 vide Ex.A-7 postal receipt, there is also acknowledgement dated 12-06-07. Whereas, opposite parties claim that having waited for notarized relinquishment deed from complainant for a period about 3 months they returned back all other documents pending with them through their letter 20-08-07 vide Ex.A-8 for want of which, the process could not be done.

Now before this Forum the main contentions raised by opposite party are that,

1. There was no intimation about death of deceased K. Venkateswarlu.

2. There was no information regarding change of address.

3. There was no nomination in bond by K. Venkateswarlu.

4. The complainant failed to submit all required documents.

5. Lastly, claim is barred by limitation.



Though they raised all above objections they expressed their readiness to send redemption warrant for Rs.6,625/- provided, complainant submits relinquishment deed duly notarized.

The question of intimation of death soon after expiry of deceased by complainant does not arise for the reasons that she may be having knowledge about existence of such bond or not. Further more, the deceased died one year prior to maturity date. This is not a policy claim under insurance law. This is only redemption of warrant of the bond amount for which action is to be processed after its maturity only. The complainant is admitting about sending redemption warrant in favour of deceased K. Venkateswarlu to his old address which was redirected to new address but they did not deliver the same as bond holder is no more. When it was returned back undelivered, the new address is very much on the cover itself, as it was redirected by postal authorities themselves. The process for redemption of bond amount on account of death of bond holder appears to be very lengthy as evident from Ex.A-4 letter dated 19-04-06. The legal heirs are required to do lot of exercise in sending information and also documents after procuring them from competent authority and also duly notarized. The complainant though furnished all information and submitted required documents, due to mistake the deed of relinquishment was not got it notarized. This may be sheer in advertence. We cannot call it as a deliberate attempt when she has sent other documents duly notarized why can’t the deed of relinquishment. When she received it back she has also complied as per demand made by opposite parties and there is evidence for that. The opposite parties submit that if simply deed of relinquishment is sent which does not contain bond number, file number etc., without a covering letter, it is not possible for them to keep track of the file and place the document in it. Further, they submit having waited for 3 months for deed of relinquishment; they returned back all other documents to complainant as no action could be taken.

From the aforesaid acts, it can be said that there is no proper processing in built system in the office of opposite parties. When complainant has taken all pains and sent once again, the deed of relinquishment duly notarized within a period of 2 or 3 months as time consumed, the question of returning other documents on the part of opposite parties is quite uncalled for and unwarranted. When they have waited in the beginning till receipt of legal notice for about one year after maturity of bond, there appears no justification to wait for some more period when process has begun. We find no convincing reason on the part of opposite parties in returning back all documents on the ground that deed of relinquishment was not received by them and wash off their hands on that count. As a matter of fact, the deed of relinquishment was sent duly notarized and there is evidence as stated above. The opposite parties are making effort to impress upon us with a lame excuse that in absence of particulars with regard to bond number, file number and without covering letter, where do they place such document. It was sent in the month of June itself. After receipt of same they returned other documents retained by them in the month of August, 2007. This is something surprising. There must be separate establishment in the office to deal with the subject. All these acts certainly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

POINTS 2 & 3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The complainant is directed to send all the documents once again to the 2nd opposite party under proper record and there upon the 2nd opposite party shall issue redemption warrant with a cheque for the maturity amount and as well as interest @9% p.a., on the said amount from 06-06-07 till date of realization.

2. The 2nd opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards legal expenses to the complainant.

3. The aforesaid order shall be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the amounts ordered in item No.2 shall carry interest @9% p.a., till the date of realization.


Dictated to steno typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 30th day of November, 2009.

C.C.No.51/2009
Between
Kanchi Jeevarathnam,

S/o. Late K.Siddaiah,

Retired Teacher,

Hindu, aged about 60 years,

Residing at D.No.3-8, Thummalagunta Village,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District. …. Complainant

And

1. The Manager,

ICICI Bank Limited,

Regd. Office Land Mark,

Race Course Circle,

Vadodara - 7.

2. The Manager,

ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd.,

3rd Floor, Kavitha Krishna Annexe,

Subidarpet, Nellore -1

3. The Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

R.V. Towers, 3rd Floor,

Tilak Road, Tirupati. …. Opposite parties

This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 11.11.2009 and upon perusing the complaint, written version, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties 2 and 3 and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri B. Chitti Babu, counsel for the complainant and Sri.G. Rajesh Babu, counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and opposite party No.1 having been called absent and set ex-parte and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER

DELIVERED BY Sri. M. SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to refund a sum of Rs.59,492.56p collected towards foreclosure charges, pending interest on installments and surcharges, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- spent for medical check up and medicines, treatment, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and suffering undergone by the complainant and also award costs for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and pass such other order or orders as the as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.



2. The factual matrix leading to filing of this complaint is set out as here under:

(a) It is the case of the complainant that way back in February, 2004, he approached the opposite party No.3 seeking for a personal loan and at that time he was working as a School Assistant in S.P.J.N.M. High School, Tirupati. While granting the above said loan, the third opposite party had taken signed blank cheques drawn on HDFC Bank, Tirupati as salaries of the complainant being disbursed through the said bank and subsequently after some period the salary disbursement was stopped through HDFC Bank and changed to SBI, Main Branch, Tirupati. The complainant availed personal loan for a sum of Rs.99,000/- vide loan A/c.No.LPTR00000350117 and also he availed housing loan for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- from the third opposite party. The above said personal loan has to be discharged in 48 installments and the housing loan also to be discharged in 120 monthly installments. The complainant had discharged the housing loan amounts beforehand for which opposite party No.3 charged interest for the pending installments for a sum of Rs.26,803.48 and LPP charges for a sum of Rs.28,338/-. When he discharged the housing loan and sought for the releasing of housing documents pledged for the said loan and opposite party No.3 did not agree for the release of pledged documents for the housing loan and delayed the same. The third opposite party forced the complainant to discharge the personal loan even thought five or six months before the completion of personal loan installments. Because of conduct and adamant attitude of the opposite party No.3 the complainant had no other go except to discharge the loan by borrowing from private financiers at an exorbitant rate of interest. He retired on 30th April, 2007 and it was difficult for him to secure funds to discharge the personal loan and therefore he was forced to borrow amounts from the private financiers and this constitutes deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.3.

(b) The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- on 29.09.2007 and also paid a sum of Rs.15,757/- on 03.10.2007. The third opposite party had illegally and arbitrarily forced the complainant for the release of housing loan documents and submits that on account of which the complainant has been subjected to hypertension and raising of sugar levels and as such the complainant has undergone frequent medical consultancy and treatment and spent nearly a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the same. The complainant sent a registered letter to opposite party No.3 on 21.01.2008 seeking for refund of the amount interest on pending installments for foreclosure charges to falling to Rs.59,492.56p and opposite party No.3 neither replied nor complied with the demands of the complainant. The complainant further narrated in para 8 of his complaint, that opposite party No.3 filed a complaint before the Hon’ble II A.J.F.C.M., Tirupati STC No. 257 of 2007 under N.I. Act and the said case has been transferred to the Hon’ble IV A.J.F.C.M., Tirupati and numbered as S.T.C.No.62 of 2008 and at last on 13.03.2009 the complaint was not pressed and so the complaint dismissed by the Hon’ble IV A.J.F.C.M., Tirupati. Soon after the HDFC Bank salary disbursement was stopped and changed to SBI, Tirupati, the complainant had informed the opposite party No.3 of the change of salaries from HDFC Bank to SBI, Tirupati but not withstanding the same opposite party No.3 launched criminal proceedings on cheque bounce case on post dated cheque. The opposite party No.3 did not inform or intimate the complainant before presenting the cheque for collection and launched criminal proceedings and subjected to the complainant has been dragged on to criminal court and further submits that even though the complainant cleared of the personal loan account by October, 2007 the complainant had been subjected to attend the criminal court for about nearly two years. The complainant further narrated in para 9 of his complaint that he was retired in the month of April, 2007 and owing to the overt acts of the opposite party No.3, the complainant has been subjected to mental agony, pain and suffering. He claims a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for medical check up and treatment and costs of the complaint a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

3. (a) The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties 1 and 2. In response, the third opposite party filed written objection / written version on behalf of the second opposite party also and filed affidavit reiterating the contents in the written version filed by him. He also filed affidavit in support of their case. The third opposite party has denied the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant and complainant has been put to strict proof of the same. In fact, the complainant approached third opposite party to obtain personal loan for a sum of Rs.99,000/- and after verifying financial credentials of the complainant granted and disbursed the loan amount after executing a loan agreement No. LPTRU00001902394 dated 05.02.2004. In terms of the above said agreement the loan amount of Rs.99,000/- along with interest was to be paid in 48 monthly installment of Rs.3,227/- each starting from 07.03.2004. The terms and conditions of the said agreement including the interest and repayment schedule was fully explained to the complainant by the officers of the opposite party. In breach of the obligations contained in the said agreement, the complainant had failed and neglected to pay the monthly installment on the specified due dates as provided in the said agreement and therefore overdue charges and other contractual levies were charged. The complainant has paid Rs.1,45,757/- towards the full and final settlement of his personal loan account on 27.09.2007 and 03.10.2009. The complainant had also availed a home loan of Rs.3,35,000/- on 23.10.2002 vide loan agreement No.LBTRU00000350117 from the opposite party. The said home loan was also to be repayable in 120 installments of Rs.4,582/- each starting from 07.04.2003. The said home loan was repaid by the complainant on 17.09.2007. The complainant was irregular in making payment of personal loan as well as home loan and therefore overdue charges and other contractual levies were charged in his loan account. The complainant has been irregular in the payment of loan installments in both said loans and thereby committed breach of the terms and conditions of the said agreement. This is, in spite of the fact of various letters and reminders were given to the complainant to make payment of the loan installment. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that apart from the instant complaint not being maintainable in law, even on the facts of the case and on merits, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for or otherwise.

(b) There was no deficiency of service on their part and 3rd opposite party never harassed the complainant at any point of time and therefore, the said opposite party is not liable to pay damages towards mental agony to the complainant. The third opposite party acted as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, the present complaint should be dismissed on this ground only. Without prejudice to what has been stated hereinabove and fully relying on the same, the said opposite party would now deal with allegations made in the instant complaint. With reference to para 3 of the complaint, it is true that the complainant has approached the opposite party for grant of personal loan of RS.99,000/- vide of loan agreement No.LPTRU00001902394 for a period of 48 months commencing from 02.03.2004 to 07.02.2008. The rate of interest in IRR 23.99 and that is denied that the opposite party had taken signed blank cheques drawn on HDFC Bank, Tirupati as the salary of the complainant being disbursed through the said bank and subsequently after some period, the salary disbursement stopped through HDFC bank and changed to SBI, Main branch, Tirupati. Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. With reference to para 4 of the complaint, it is true that the complainant has approached opposite party for grant of housing loan in the year of 2002 for Rs.3,35,000/-vide execution of loan agreement No.LBTRU00000350117 for a period of 120 months commencing from 07.04.2003 to 07.03.2013. The rate of interest is 13.75%. The complainant was chronic defaulter in payment of EMI’s. The third opposite party further submits that from the date of loan till the foreclosure of loan, the complainant failed to honour the auto debit cheques except cash payments after default installments, the complainant had failed to pay total pending EMI’s. The failure on the part of the complainant to pay the dues in time had resulted in over dues and other contractual charges levied on the account. The opposite party requested the complainant through oral reminders and notices to clear the outstanding dues in the captioned loan account. But no payments were received from the complainant and as a last resort, the opposite party filed a case u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide case No. STC NO.257 of 2007 before the Hon’ble II J.F.C.M. of Tirupati and the same is withdrawn by the third opposite party after discharge of loan account by the complainant.

(c ) With reference to para 5 of the complaint, it is true that complainant paid the loan amount before tenure and the rest of the allegations are denied. With reference to unnumbered para of the complaint, the third opposite party denies the allegations that the complainant constrained to take finance from private parties at an exorbitant rate of interest and it constitute deficiency of service is false and baseless. The opposite party further submits that as the complainant had failed and neglected to pay the EMI’s on its due dates from the date of disbursement of loam i.e from 2004 and therefore outstanding amount under loan account was increased and over due charges and other contractual charges levied. With reference to para 6 of the complaint, it is true that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- on 29.09.2007 and of Rs.15,757/- on 03.10.2007 which the complainant is bound and obliged to pay to third opposite party. The third opposite party denies the allegations that the complainant was forced for the release of housing loan documents and submits that on account of which the complainant has been subjected to hypertension and raising sugar level and undergone treatment and spent Rs.10,000/-. Further the foreclosure letter which clearly revealed the balance amount of the complainant under loan account in different heads and the same was payable by the complainant and accordingly the complainant paid the amount. The third opposite party further denies that they never received any notice from the complainant. With reference to para 8 of the complaint it is true that opposite party filed STC No.257 of 2007 under N.I. Act and the said complaint was not withdrawn by the opposite party. With reference to para 9 of the complaint, the allegations are false and baseless and the third opposite party is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant. The complainant had failed, neglected and refused to honor reciprocal contractual commitments and obligations towards the payment of monthly installments and thereby committed material default/gross and breach of contract in observing the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Due to his regular defaults from the date of agreement, attracting additional charges as per the agreement and he is bound to pay charges as per banking laws and as per foreclosure statement the complainant paid the dues. From the date of agreement, the third opposite party complied all the terms and conditions laid under the loan agreement. The complainant himself failed to comply with the terms and conditions under the agreement and the third opposite party is not liable to pay any damages and for expenses to the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the third opposite party. By suppressing the material facts, the complaint has been filed by the complainant on this ground alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit. He also filed 17 documents which are marked as Exs. A1 to A17. Ex.A1 is relating to personal loan obtained by the complainant from the third opposite party and statement of account issued by the third opposite party. Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of payment receipt No. L0807 3626435 dated 27.09.2009 for Rs.1,30,000/- issued by the third opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of payment receipt No. L 807 3626439 dated 03.10.2007 for Rs.17,757/- issued by the third opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ex.A4 is the original payment receipt bearing No.O 08073272665 for Rs.100/- issued by the third opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ex.A5 is the Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the third opposite party dated 21.01.2008. Ex.A6 is the postal receipt dated 21.01.2008. Ex.A7 is the due notice dated 25.01.2006 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant with regard to home finance. Ex.A8 is the letter dated 27.09.2007 issued by the third opposite party to the complainant with regard to repayment of personal loan (foreclosure information). Ex.A9 is the summons issued to the complainant by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in the case STC 257/2007 for appearance of the complainant on 07.04.2007 for the charge of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Ex.A10 is the certified copy of complaint filed on behalf of third opposite party against the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C punishable under Section 138 & 142of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Ex.A11 is the certified copy of order in STC 62 /2008 (STC 257/2007) of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati. Ex.A12 is the Xerox copy of SBI pass book bearing No.10625989839 of complainant and its details of transactions made in it. Ex.A13 is the xerox copy of the bunch of prescriptions issued by Ravi Neuro Care Centre for treatment of the complainant and CT scan of the complainant. Ex.A14 is the office copy of legal notice dated 13.05.2009 issued by the complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties. Ex.A15 is the speed post receipt dated 13.05.2009 mentioning name of the third opposite party by the complainant. Ex.A16 is the certificate of posting receipt showing the addresses of the first and second opposite parties. Ex.A17 is the Xerox copy of notice of superannuation of the complainant and the list issued by the Municipal Office, Tirupati.

5. In support of the averments made in the written version by the third opposite party, the Manager of the third opposite party filed three documents which are marked as Ex.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is the statement of account of personal loan availed by the complainant from third opposite party. Ex.B2 is the statement of account by the third opposite party to the complainant with regard to house loan and its payment of installments particulars. Ex.B3 is the Xerox copy of personal loan agreement copy signed by both the parties (complainant and third opposite party). It contains repayment schedule of loan as well as a copy of promissory noted executed by the complainant in favour of the third opposite party.

6. The written arguments of the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed in support of their case. Both of them have adduced evidence by way of affidavits.

7. On the basis of the pleadings and documentary evidence, the points that arise for our determination are:

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

towards the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed, if so to what

extent?

3. To what result?

8. Point No.1:- (a) The basic facts of this consumer case is not disputed. The complainant and the opposite parties 2&3 have filed affidavit evidence reiterating the averments made in the complaint and the written version /objections. The learned counsel for the complainant Sri. B. Chitti Babu has vehemently argued that the complainant discharged housing loan before hand five or six months before the opposite party No.3 charged interest for the pending installments for a sum of Rs.26,803/-, LPP charges for a sum of Rs.28,338/-. He also further argued that when the complainant sought for release of housing documents mortgaged / pledged, the third opposite party did not agree to release them and forced the complainant to discharge the personal loan. The complainant retired on 30th April, 2007 and it was difficult for him to secure funds to discharge the loan and he was constrained to borrow from private financiers at an exorbitant rate of interest and this constitute deficiency of service on the part of the third opposite party. He also further argued that complainant is subjected to criminal proceedings initiated by the third opposite party in spite of the payment of due on home loan as well as personal loan. Finally, he also argued that complainant is entitled to all the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.

(b) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3, Sri G.Rajesh Babu also vehemently argued that complainant was a chronic defaulter in payment of equated monthly installments from the date of loan till the completion of the loan, and the complainant failed to honour the cheques. He also further argued that the failure on the part of the complainant to pay the dues in time had resulted in EMI over dues and other contractual charges levied on the account. Finally, he also argued that the complainant is bound to pay charges as per the banking laws, without paying the charges the loan will not be closed. In fact, the complainant himself failed to comply with the terms and conditions under the agreement and the third opposite party is not liable to pay any damages and expenses amount to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service in service on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover the complainant has suppressed material facts while filing complaint before this Forum and on this ground alone, the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The complainant made false accusations against the opposite parties with a malafide intention to get wrongful gain to evade the loan amount. There is no cause of action to file this complaint. The Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

(c ) Forum’s findings and observations

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The only point for our determination is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. On perusal of the documents and evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the complainant at no point of time regular in payment of installments due on both loans (home loan & personal loan) to the opposite party No.3. It is clearly manifest through Ex.B1 to B3 documents. When there is clear in terms and conditions of the agreement signed by both the parties, they are bound to follow them without any deviation from it. When there is default in payment of regular installments due by the complainant to the opposite parties and naturally the over due charges and finally interest will accrue as per loan agreement schedule Ex.B3. When a cheque is presented for collection and if there is no sufficient balance in the account, automatically the cheque will be bounced with the reason of “insufficient funds” in the account. It is natural that the aggrieved party may initiate proceedings before the criminal court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Here, the complainant cannot complain against the opposite parties for the simple reason that his cheque is dishonoured and further it leads to proceedings before criminal courts at Tirupati. It is quite correct that consequences will be followed as per the law and procedure. It is clearly evident from the statement of accounts relating to the personal loan as well as home loan obtained by the complainant goes to show that complainant has miserably failed to pay the EMI’s to the opposite parties in time and over due charges and other consequential charges levied against him. The question of payment of installments due on housing loan in advance and well before date will not support and protect the complainant because of his earlier defaults in payment of installments due on the particular dates to the opposite parties. The complainant by his own conduct and attitude towards the opposite parties, has dug his own pit and incurred much monetary loss and for that, nobody is responsible except the complainant himself. He cannot blame the opposite parties for his own fault in payment of installments irregularly to the third opposite party. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant. This complaint has no merits to judge and decide in favour of the complainant. It is merit less and has no substance to look into for the reliefs sought for by the complainant. This point is answered accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- In view of the aforesaid discussion made in point No.1 and basing on the principles of Natural Justice, it can be said that complaint is merit less and it is liable to be dismissed without costs. This point in answered accordingly.

10. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed without costs.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 19th day of November, 2009.

Dear Sir,

This is acomplain against ICICI Bank credit card Dept.

I have ICICI Bank Credit card No.4477463575973009, payment (Rs.16000) was done by
cheque no.218840 (HDFC Bank-Indore) on 14th August 09, then too credit card dept.
has marked lien on my ICICI Bank Saving account on 1st week of Nov 09, so EMI for
my housing loan & car loan got bounced, also an amount of Rs.16048.74 was debited
from my Savings account on 13th Nov 09 inspite of sending bank statement of HDFC
bank showing the amount credited to ICICI bank credit card(copy of scan cheque also
mailed). This has spoiled my credit history and will create problems in future as I
am planning to avail housing loan.

Also I am posted in Surat (Gujarat) & my family is in Indore, I faced a lot of
problem as my EMI's got bounced, my account was freezed which created financial
problem,receiving phone calls & sms for credit card payment & EMI bounce payment
to be done.



Please help me as I want to claim compensation from the bank for all the pain &
mental agony.



Regards

Bernard Gomes

9879110353

Dear Sir/Ma'am

I would like to file case against ICICI Bank Credit Card as they are
constantly harrassing me and my family for the payments. I have settled the
dues with them for a total amount of Rs47000 in 3 installments and last
installment being paid on 7th Dec 2008. I have all the evidence that the
card was settled and the payments were paid on time. I have given them a
copy of their letter and my bank statements but they are still following up
and use dirty and abusive language with me and my family. I would also like
to tell you that this is not the first time with ICICI. I was earlier
working in Royal Sundaram General Insurance, Gurgaon there also customers
complain a lot that ICICI debits their cards for premium payments without
their permission.

Please suggest me a way out. I want this to stop as soon as possible.

--
Regards
Manu Handa

Dear Manu,

We apologise for the inconvenience caused.

Please write to us with your contact details and credit card number at care@icicibank.com (Subject line: UID 211033). We'll contact you and work to address your issue.

Regards,
ICICI Customer Service Team.

Originally Posted by adv.singh

Dear Sir/Ma'am

I would like to file case against ICICI Bank Credit Card as they are
constantly harrassing me and my family for the payments. I have settled the
dues with them for a total amount of Rs47000 in 3 installments and last
installment being paid on 7th Dec 2008. I have all the evidence that the
card was settled and the payments were paid on time. I have given them a
copy of their letter and my bank statements but they are still following up
and use dirty and abusive language with me and my family. I would also like
to tell you that this is not the first time with ICICI. I was earlier
working in Royal Sundaram General Insurance, Gurgaon there also customers
complain a lot that ICICI debits their cards for premium payments without
their permission.

Please suggest me a way out. I want this to stop as soon as possible.

--
Regards
Manu Handa

Dear Bernard,

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

Regards,
ICICI Customer Service Team.

Originally Posted by adv.singh

Dear Sir,

This is acomplain against ICICI Bank credit card Dept.

I have ICICI Bank Credit card No.4477463575973009, payment (Rs.16000) was done by
cheque no.218840 (HDFC Bank-Indore) on 14th August 09, then too credit card dept.
has marked lien on my ICICI Bank Saving account on 1st week of Nov 09, so EMI for
my housing loan & car loan got bounced, also an amount of Rs.16048.74 was debited
from my Savings account on 13th Nov 09 inspite of sending bank statement of HDFC
bank showing the amount credited to ICICI bank credit card(copy of scan cheque also
mailed). This has spoiled my credit history and will create problems in future as I
am planning to avail housing loan.

Also I am posted in Surat (Gujarat) & my family is in Indore, I faced a lot of
problem as my EMI's got bounced, my account was freezed which created financial
problem,receiving phone calls & sms for credit card payment & EMI bounce payment
to be done.



Please help me as I want to claim compensation from the bank for all the pain &
mental agony.



Regards

Bernard Gomes

9879110353

COMPLAINT NO.120/2009

(Admitted on 29.5.2009)

PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President

2. Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member

3. Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member

BETWEEN:

Mr.Arun Baptist Pinto,

Aged about … years,

S/o Bapitist Pinto,

Residing at Madame House,

Kukkipady Village,

Bantwal Taluk. …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri Umesh Kumar.Y.)

VERSUS

1. The Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

1st Floor, Bharath Building,

P.M.Rao Road,

Mangalore.

2. The Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.

Thane (West),

Maharastra. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 and 2: Sri.P.Ashok Ariga.)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.

The Complainant states that Opposite Party No.1 is the Branch Office of Opposite Party No.2 having its Branch office at Mangalore. The Complainant is a account holder of the Opposite Party as per Account No.015101024460.

It is stated that the Complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Denomination of 500 X 90 notes) on 17.5.2008. It is stated that on the same day the Complainant has checked his account through ATM/Debit Card. The Complainant was unable to know the amount in his account. Thereafter the Complainant enquired with the officials of the Opposite Party and the officials of the Opposite Party informed the Complainant to check on the very next day. Accordingly on 18.5.2008 the Complainant has checked his account and unable to know the amount in his account. Thereafter the Complainant returned back to Mangalore on 19.5.2008. On 20.5.2008 once again the Complainant checked his account and found that the account was deactivated.

The Complainant submits that in order to activate his account he has filled up his form and submitted the same to the Opposite Party No.1 and the account was activated and found that only Rs.32,000/- has been credited to his account, there is a shortage of Rs.13,000/-. The Complainant obtained statement of account dated 23.7.2008 there is a deficit amount in the Complainant’s bank account and contended that Opposite Party No.2 has issued a acknowledgement to the Complainant stating that Complainant had deposit Rs.45,000/-. The Complainant sent a letter on 26.6.2008 but the Opposite Party failed to give an explanation and thereafter the Complainant got issued a legal notice on 29.8.2008 calling upon the Opposite Party to return the deficit amount but the Opposite Party failed to do the same which amounts to deficiency and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay deficit amount of Rs.13,000/- to the Complainant along with interest at 10.5.% per annum and also pay damages of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version contended that the Complaint is false, frivolous and unsustainable under law and facts.

The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant was account holder of a Opposite Party bank and for the goodwill of the customer and convenient of the customers deposit of money through closed envelops system was introduced by the Opposite Party bank. Under the said system customer has to put money inside the envelop and after tagging the envelope it should be deposited in the counter. After banking hours responsible person the bank will open the envelop and money will be credited to the accounts of the customer. If there is any shortage of money in the envelope customer has to give the Complaint to the bank within 30 days from the date of deposit.

It is further submitted that, in this case the Complainant had deposited cash in quick cash deposit envelop on 17.5.2008 amounting to Rs.45,000/- over the envelope. When the envelop opened it was observed that there were 13 notes of Rs.500/- short. Immediately Opposite Party tried contact the customer and were unable to contact and hence Rs.32,000/- kept in the suspense account. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.32,000/- was reversed from suspense account on 30.5.2008 and credited to his account No.015101024460. It is contended that the Opposite Party has taken all necessary steps to intimate the customer and there was a shortage of 13 notes of 500 denomination and contending that there is no deficiency and Complainant’s claim is not valid and justified and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant is a consumer?



(ii) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

(iii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(i) What order?

4. In support of the complaint Sri.Arun Baptist Pinto, (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C5 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Prasad Muloor Gopalakrishana, Authorized Signatory & Collection Manager of Opposite Party No.1(RW-1) filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 was marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure. Both parties have filed written notes of arguments.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon’ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:

Point No.(i): Affirmative.

Point No.(ii): Affirmative.

Point No.(iii) & (iv): As per the final order.



REASONS

5. POINT NO.(i):

The first plea taken by the Opposite Parties are that the Complainant is not a consumer. As far as this point is concerned, the Complainant contended that he is a account holder with the Opposite Party bank bearing Account No.015101024460. The above account number with the Opposite Party Bank is not denied and in Para No.3 of the version the Opposite Parties admitted that Complainant is a account holder of the Opposite Party Bank. When the Complainant is a account holder and customer of the bank, the service rendered by the Opposite Party bank to the Complainant is a service falls within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and hence the Complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable. Hence, Point No.(i) held in favaour of the Complainant.

POINTS No. (ii) to (iv):

As far as deficiency is concerned, the Complainant in the instant case raised a contention that on 17.5.2008 he had deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/- (denomination of 500 X 90 notes) through quick cash deposit with the Opposite Party bank and obtained a acknowledgement. It is contended that, after depositing the above said amount the Complainant had checked the amount through ATM but the amount was not found in the account of the Complainant. Thereafter, on 19.5.2008 and 20.5.2008 once again checked his account he found that his account was deactivated. The Complainant approached the Opposite Parties and enquired about the account activation and the account was activated by crediting Rs.32,000/- instead of Rs.45,000/-. It is contended that there is a shortage Rs.13,000/-.

The Opposite Party interalia contended that, the Complainant credited the amount through closed envelopes system introduced by the Opposite Party bank. Under the said system customer has to put money inside the envelop and after tagging the envelop it should be deposited in the counter of Opposite Party bank. After banking hours responsible person of the bank will open the envelop and money will be credited to the accounts of the customer. And further submitted that if there is any shortage of money in the envelop then customer has to give complaint to the bank within 30 days from the date of deposit. And in this case the Complainant not given any complaint regarding shortage of deposited money. The amount ascertained by ICICI Bank shall be deemed to be the correct amount deposited. The Complainant had deposited Rs.45,000/- on 17.5.2008 by mentioning over the envelop when the envelop was opened there were 13 notes of 500 short. Immediately Opposite Party tried to contact the Complainant but were unable to contact the Complainant. Hence Rs.32,000/- kept in suspense account and subsequently an amount of Rs.32,000/- was reversed on 30.5.2008 and credited to his account with the Opposite Party bank.

In this complaint the Complainant led evidence as CW-1 and produced Ex.C1 to C5 and Opposite Party examined RW-1 and produced Ex.R1 i.e. Quick Cash Deposit Envelop.

From the rival contentions raised by the parties we have found that the Opposite Party Bank i.e. I.C.I.C.I Bank introduced to the customers a new way of deposit of money through closed envelop system i.e. Quick Cash Deposit Envelop. On careful scrutiny of the quick cash deposit envelop on the front page of the envelop the particulars which contains the date, Name of the Branch where the amount is deposited, account number is with the Branch, Full Name of Account Holder/Credit Card Holder, Account Number (For Deposit In Bank Account), Credit Card Number (for Deposit in Credit Card Account), Telephone/Mobile Number of the Depositor, Denominations, Pieces, Rupees, Total Amount in Words, Name and Signature of the Depositor and Tran. ID, Officer, Verifying Officer particulars and also it contains Terms and Conditions printed in the acknowledgement. And further we have observed that the above said envelop in main heading with underline it has been noted as under:

(For Cash Deposit of 100 upto Rs.20,000) .

From the above particulars over the envelop one can make out that the customer can deposit cash money of Rs.100/- upto Rs.20,000/- and not more than the amount mentioned in the overleaf. The Opposite Party Bank except producing the blank quick cash deposit envelop nothing has been placed before the FORA to show that the Complainant deposited only Rs.32,000/- and not Rs.45,000/-. The Opposite Party Bank should have produced the quick cash deposit envelop deposited by the Complainant on 17.5.2008 before the FORA to show that who was the officer verified the contents of the denominations etc. etc. The acknowledgement slip issued by the Opposite Party Bank to the Complainant i.e. Ex.C1 dated 17.5.2008 reveals that the Complainant deposited Rs.45,000/- to his bank Account No.05101024460 with the Opposite Party Bank through Quick Cash Deposit Envelop.

However, the Opposite Party vehemently contended that, for convenient of the customers deposit of money through closed envelop system was introduced by the Opposite Party bank under the said system customer has put to money inside the envelop and after tagging the envelop it should be deposited in the counter. After banking hours responsible person of the bank will open the envelop and money will be credited to the accounts of the customer. If there is any shortage of money customer has to give complaint to the bank within 30 days. In this case Complainant not given any complaint further it is contended that as per the terms of the envelop cover deposited cash will be credited to the account subject to verification of actual contents and amount. The real confirmation of deposited money will be shown only after counting the money and in the given case the Complainant deposited only 32,000/-. Opposite Party bank immediately tried to contact the Complainant but could not contact the Complainant hence kept in suspense account. On 30.5.2008 Rs.32,000/- was credited to the account of the Complainant.

The terms and conditions highlighted in the acknowledgment is very much relevant which reads thus:

“Terms & Conditions:

1. This envelope should be used only for cash deposits of Rs.100/- up to Rs.20,000/- in case the amount deposited is more than Rs.20,000/-, ICICI Bank reserves the right to return the amount to the depositor.

2. Charges for cash deposited to account other than at home branch will be recovered from the amount deposited. Such charges shall be same as specified for “Anywhere Banking”.

3. This envelope should not be used for deposits in NRE Accounts.

4. Envelope deposited by your is opened under surveillance camera. Cash will be credited to the account subject to verification of actual contents and amount. The amount as ascertained by ICICI Bank shall be deemed to be the correct amount deposited.

5. Cut/Soiled/Multilated/Defective notes should not be deposited in the envelope. If in the event, ICICI Bank ascertains any or all of the notes are discrepant it shall endeavour to notify the depositor and/or the account holder, and shall only credit after deducting the amount of the discrepant notes. ICICI Bank will present such discrepant notes to RBI and will credit the realized value, if any, on receipt.

6. Please DO NOT PUT STAPLED NOTES in the envelope.

7. The amount will be credited to the account after minimum 1 hour from the time of deposit.

8. All envelopes received after 6 P.M. would be credited to account on the next working day.

9. Minimum deposit through Quick cash deposit is Rs.100/-

10. Please deposit coins, if any, over the cash counter.”



Even after reading the terms and conditions, we have pointed out that envelop should be used only for cash deposits of Rs.100/- upto Rs.20,000/-. In case the amount deposited is more than Rs.20,000/- ICICI Bank reserves the right to return the amount to the depositor. But in the instant case, as per the acknowledgement issued by the Opposite Party dated 17.5.2008, the Complainant deposited more than Rs.20,000/- with the Opposite Party Bank i.e. Rs.45,000/-. What we find that, the Opposite Party Bank should not have received the envelop or they should have immediately contact the Complainant/customer to return the amount. In case of unable to contact the customer they should have issued a notice to call for the shortage of amount deposited by the customer. But in the given case, the Opposite Party Bank not attempted to contact the Complainant or issued a notice to the Complainant.

Further we have noticed that, as per the terms and conditions of the Quick Cash Deposit in Para 4 of the terms and conditions it has stated that “The envelop deposited by your is opened under surveillance camera. Cash will be credited to account subject to the verification of actual content and amount”. And further in Para 7 and 8 of the terms and conditions stated that “the amount will be credited to the account after minimum one hour from the time of deposit. All envelops received after 6 P.M. would be credited to account on the next working day”. But in the given case, the Opposite Parties miserably failed to produce video copy of the surveillance camera before the FORA in order to substantiate their case. Except producing a blank Quick Cash Depositing Envelop nothing has been placed to show that who has verified the contents of the denominations deposited by the Complainant under the Quick Cash Deposit Envelop. As admitted by the Opposite Parties in their terms and conditions that the amount will be credited to the account after minimum one hour from the time of deposit. But in this case the Opposite Party admittedly deposited the alleged amount of Rs.32,000/- deposited to the bank account of the Complainant only on 30.5.2008 but acknowledged the envelop by the Opposite Party bank which contains Rs.45,000/-. We further find that when a Opposite Party Bank introduces some advanced system to the general public it should not be one sided but it should be open and binding on both the sides. But in the given case, the above system introduced by the Opposite Party Bank is a one sided which amounts to unfair trade practice. The Opposite Parties while issuing the acknowledgement itself should be cautious that in case of any dispute invited by the general public the Opposite Party Bank should be in a position to provide all the material documents maintained in their office as per the terms and conditions introduced to the general public herein the Complainant. In this case, the Opposite Party Bank not taken immediate steps either by issuing a registered notice or any other means to communicate the shortage of money to the Complainant itself shows their lapse while discharging their responsibility. On over all consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents/evidence available on record we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party bank inspite of acknowledging Rs.45,000/- deposited by the Complainant the same has not been deposited to the Complainant account which amounts to unfair trade practice and the service rendered by the Opposite Party Bank amounts to deficiency.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we hold that the Opposite Party Bank i.e. ICICI Bank represented by its Manager/official incharge is hereby directed to pay Rs.13,000/- to the Complainant and also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for inconvenience and the harassment. Further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be within 30 days from the date of this order.

On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated period as mentioned above the Opposite Parties shall pay interest at 10% per annum on Rs.13,000/- from the date of failure till the date of payment.



6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party Bank i.e. ICICI Bank represented by its Manager/official incharge is hereby directed to pay Rs.13,000/- to the Complainant and also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for inconvenience and the harassment. Further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be within 30 days from the date of this order.

On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated period as mentioned above the Opposite Parties shall pay interest at 10% per annum on Rs.13,000/- from the date of failure till the date of payment.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.



(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November 2009.)