CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2009 Date of filing : 06/02/2009

@ MISC. APPL. NO. 250 OF 2009 Date of order : 23/06/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 559 OF 2008

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : KOLHAPUR



1. ICICI Bank Ltd.

Regd. Office Landmark, Racecourse circle

Vadodra – 390007, INDIA.

2. ICICI Bank Ltd.

P.O. Box – 10099, GPO Mumbai-400 001.

3. ICICI Bank Ltd.

Vasant Plaza, Bagal Chowk,

Rakara Road, Opp. Hemkiran Diesel,

Kolhapur. … Appellants/org. O.Ps.

V/s.

Shri Dattatray Sadashiv Gurav

R/at Kuditray, Tal. Karvir,

Dist. Kolhapur. … Respondent/org. complainant


Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Mr.A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Subodh Gokhale, Advocate for the respondent.

- : ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 18/12/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.559/2008 Shri Dattatray S. Gurav V/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. by District Consumer Forum Kolhapur (‘Forum below’ in short).

It is the case of respondent/complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘complainant’) that in the month of February 2007, he had taken a personal loan of Rs.33,400/- from the appellant/O.P.-Bank (hereinafter referred as ‘Bank’). Said loan was agreed to be repaid with monthly E.M.I. of Rs.1,632/- in total 36 installments. The Bank suo-moto and without notice to the complainant changed the amount of EMI from Rs.1,632/- to Rs.2,002/-. Complainant tried to redress his grievance about it from the Bank but in vain and therefore, fed up with the attitude of the Bank, offered entire repayment of loan taken, but it was not accepted by the Bank. On the contrary, Recovery Officer or Personnel of the Bank started harassing complainant over phone. Complainant had given details of the calls received from the Bank official or agent and stated as to how he felt harassed. Therefore, after giving a notice, he filed a consumer complaint claiming compensation for such harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part of Bank. Forum below awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation on that count plus Rs.10,000/- as penalty damages and Rs.1,000/- as cost. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Bank preferred this appeal.

We heard Mr.A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate for the appellant/Bank and Mr.Subodh Gokhale, Advocate for the respondent/org. complainant. Perused the record.

It is conceded by Shri Vidyarthi, Learned Counsel for the appellant that Bank put its appearance before the Forum below, but failed to file their written statement and statement made in appeal memo about filing of written statement is incorrect. We appreciate this fair act on the part of appellant’s Counsel.

Coming to the merit of the case, pleadings and averments made therein about alleged harassment from the Bank officials is not repudiated by the Bank. From the record, it does show that EMI of Rs.1,632/- was paid, sometimes EMI of Rs.2,002/- was recovered. But, when this enhanced EMI was demanded, admittedly there was dispute raised by the complainant which considering the approach of the Bank that they are not accepting the initial agreement to EMI @ Rs.1,632/-. Fed up with the attitude and approach of the Bank, complainant offered repayment of entire loan, but Bank did not accept the same and instead of that through its Recovery Agents and Officials started harassing the complainant, details of which are mentioned in the complaint itself. Under the circumstances, Bank is guilty of deficiency in service towards its customer, who had taken loan from it. Bank was not at all expected to adopt such coercive, uncalled and un-parliamentary methods to recover their alleged dues from the customer. Bank also failed to accept the entire repayment of loan which they were bound to do and that is another count on which the Bank is guilty for deficiency in service. Complainant is entitled for compensation on this count.

The loan amount is Rs.33,400/-. By impugned order, Forum below awarded effectively Rs.60,000/- as compensation, which certainly is on higher side considering undisputed circumstances. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant to claim higher side of compensation for mental harassment. Therefore, in the given circumstances, we find it just and proper to modify the amount of compensation as per final order. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Appeal is partly allowed.

2. In clause No. 2 of the operative part of the order/award instead of Rs.50,000/-, figure of Rs.20,000/- be substituted.

3. Further, in clause No. 3 of the operative part of the order/award instead of Rs.10,000/- figure of Rs.5,000/- be substituted.

4. The impugned order/award subject to these modifications stands confirmed.

5. Misc. Appl. No.250/2009 which is for stay stands disposed of as infructuous.

6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S. P. Lale) (S.R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member