IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)



Date of decision: 02.03.2009


First Appeal No.2008/119

(Arising from the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by District Forum(Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No.65/2005)





Ms. Kiran Sikri, .. Appellant.

W/o Sh. Satish Sikri

31, Chander Nagar,

A-Block, Janakpuri,

New Delhi



Versus





1. Sh. Sharad Sharma … Respondent

Head-Phone Banking

Group M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Phone Banking Centre,

P.O. Box No.20,

Banjara Hills,

P.O. Hyderabad.



2. The Manager in Charge,

M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

2nd Floor, Videocon Tower,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi.



3. M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

2nd Floor, Videocon Tower,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi.

CORAM:





Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President

Ms. Rumnita Mittal … Member





1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?



2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?



Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)





1. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 13.12.2007, amounting to Rs.10,000/-, for having suffered immensely in terms of reputation, physical discomfort, emotional suffering and also having been forced to approach the District Forum for return of post dated cheques and issue of No Dues Certificate and having suffered threats of the recovery agents, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. We have perused the impugned order, the District Forum has given following directions to the respondent:

(i) To return all PDCs or give an undertaking that no PDCs will be misused by the OP in any manner.

(ii) To issue No Dues certificate under Loan Account No.LADEL – 0000-2748-295 in favour of the complainant.

(iii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

(iv) To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.



3. Allegations of the appellant in brief are that he applied to the respondent for a car loan to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. The respondent sanctioned this amount which was repayable in 35 EMIs of Rs.8,808/- per month. The appellant delivered 35 post dated cheques of Rs.8,808/- each. But due to the inflated rate of interest, the appellant changed her mind and applied to the respondent to cancel the loan on 22.11.2004, the respondent accepted her request and cancelled the loan. Consequently the loan was never disbursed. The appellant requested the respondent to return all post dated cheques which were handed over to the respondent at the time of sanctioning of the loan. The respondent assured return of all post dated cheques. Later on respondent started presenting the post dated cheques in spite of the fact that loan was never availed by the appellant. Appellant informed the respondent about this illegal practice, in response to which the respondent admitted that all this had happened due to mistake. Later on the appellant received a notice from the respondent dated 08.12.2004 calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.9,029/-, which became due on the dishonour of the cheque. Another notice was also received from the respondent on 07.01.2005. This time the respondent called upon the appellant to pay Rs.18,085/- failing which they threatened to issue proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Recovery agent was also sent to intimidate and harass the appellant. The appellant prayed for directions to respondent to return all post dated cheques, with compensation and cost of litigation.

4. In reply, the respondent pleaded that as per request made by the appellant with it, for grant of loan of Rs.3 lacs for purchase of a vehicle namely Accent Car under the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Scheme of the respondent Bank, the respondent had approved the loan of Rs.3 lacs to the appellant in terms of the loan agreement entered into between the parties. Accordingly on 04.11.2004, the said loan amount has been duly disbursed to the dealer as per the request of the appellant and the said amount has been duly debited in the loan account of the appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that after sometime the appellant made a request with the respondent for cancellation of the said loan and accordingly the request had been processed with the different department of the respondent bank and finally the respondent had got the refund of the loan amount from the said dealer and only after the same the loan account of the appellant has been closed by the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that since the loan account was in operation till February 2005, due to time taken in the process of cancellation of the loan, therefore, the cheques pertaining to the months till the closure of the loan account have been presented by the respondent. However, after cancellation and closure of the said loan, the respondent bank had already sent the said post dated cheques to the appellant in due course of business. Accordingly there was no malafide intention on the part of the respondent and there was no deficiency in service.

5. Impugned order clearly shows that the plea of the respondent that the loan was disbursed in favour of the dealer did not find favour with the District Forum and rightly so as the vehicle was never purchased by the appellant. No document was produced by the respondent to show that amount of Rs.3 lacs was ever disbursed. Had it not been so the respondent would not have accepted the request of the appellant to cancel the loan? So much so the respondent did not demand any money either towards interest or otherwise at the time of receiving the application for cancellation of loan.

6. It is not understandable what prompted the respondent to indulge in such unethical and unscrupulous act that inspite of that it sent letter dated 08.12.2004 calling up on the appellant to pay Rs.9,029/- on account of dishonouring of the cheque. Another notice was sent on 07.01.2005 calling upon the appellant to pay Rs.18,085/-. The respondent did not stop here. It started threatening the appellant to initiate criminal proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It also sent the recovery agent.

7. The suffering of the consumer have to be adequately compensated. According to the Supreme Court, the word compensation appearing in Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 includes each and every element of suffering by the consumer at the hands of service provider, which includes mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort, emotional sufferings, actual loss, expected loss, and other injustice suffered, by the consumer. In this regard the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 are quote worthy and are as under:



“The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law.”



8. We have further extended the concept of compensation to the extent that those service providers who force a consumer to seek remedy before Consumer Forum or before any other legal forum to have their rightful claim are liable to pay in addition to what a consumer is otherwise entitled to as nowadays the legal remedy is becoming costlier day by day and it is not only time consuming but at times tortuous also. Rich and powerful business and other service providers drag the poor consumer to the last forum i.e. Supreme Court by filing one appeal after other as Consumer Protection Act provides for appeal upto the Supreme Court and a poor consumer gets a final decision after 10 years or so.

9. Keeping in view the entire spectrum of facts and agony, torture suffered by the appellant we deem that amount of compensation was very meagre. The appeal is allowed by directing the respondent to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation beside complying with the directions of the District Forum. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

10. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.

11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced today on 02nd day of March 2009.