Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1029/2019

Bir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

09 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1029/2019
Date of Institution	:	24/10/2019
Date of Decision	:	09/12/2022

 

Bir Singh son of Shri Mukhram Singh, resident of 170, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Near Verka Milk Plant, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh
2. Nodal Officer, ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Phone Banking Center, ICICI Bank Tower, 7^th Floor, Survey No.115/27, Plot No.12, Nanakr Amguda, Serilinampally, Hyderabad-500032.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Rani Bhavjot Kaur Bhullar, Adv. for complainant alongwith complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Kartik, Adv. Proxy for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Bir Singh, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 17.2.2007, complainant had taken a loan from the OPs to the tune of ₹25,135/- for personal use against which rate of interest was fixed at 48.89% and it was agreed to be paid in 20 installments @ ₹1,677/- per installment. On 26.2.2007, the aforesaid amount was credited in the loan account of the complainant. OP-1 used to collect the installments through complainant’s account by way of cheque as well as cash receipts on different dates in the gap of one month and the late fee was also collected through agents of OP-1, as is also clear from Annexure P-2.  Till 5.1.2009, complainant had already paid an amount of ₹57,752/- towards the loan account which included late charges and fine. On 29.1.2009, OP-1 through collection agent sent a letter directing the complainant to pay ₹5,000/- in full and final settlement of the loan account and in compliance to the said letter, complainant had paid ₹5,000/- i.e. the whole settlement amount on 30.1.2009 vide cash receipt (Annexure P-2) and the letter sent by the OP is Annexure P-3.  However, the complainant was shocked when OP-1 on 22.8.2013 sent reminder to the complainant and directed him to pay overdue outstanding amount of ₹14,362/-. Since the complainant had already paid loan amount as per the one time settlement, OPs have made illegal demand of the aforesaid outstanding amount.  In the year 2019, when the complainant again applied for a loan, he was informed by OP-1 through letter dated 12.9.2019 that the outstanding loan amount to the tune of ₹20,379/- is payable by him in the aforesaid loan account. However, when the complainant had already paid the entire loan amount, OPs have made wrong demand of the said amount and in this manner there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of limitation and also that as the complainant has not made the payment within the stipulated period, OPs have rightly informed the complainant about the outstanding amount.  As there was delay in repayment of the loan amount by the complainant, penalty was also imposed upon the complainant.  However, it is admitted that loan amount of ₹25,135/- was released in favour of the complainant, which was repayable in 20 installments of ₹1,677/- per installment.  The payment of ₹5,000/- received from the complainant on 30.1.2009 was adjusted against his overdues. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, the complainant re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their respective claims, the parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the micro loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by OP-1 on 17.2.2007 to the tune of ₹25,135/- against interest rate of 48.89% payable in 20 installments with each installment of ₹1,677/- and the complainant had paid an amount of ₹57,752/- till 5.1.2009, and an amount of ₹5,000/- was also deposited by him on 30.1.2009, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant had paid the entire loan amount alongwith interest and delay charges through installments as well as one time settlement scheme and the OPs have raised wrong outstanding  amount against the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant, or if the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainant had paid the entire loan amount alongwith interest and delay charges, OPs have wrongly shown the overdue outstanding amount of ₹14,362/- in the loan account of the complainant and the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainant has not paid the overdue outstanding amount with delay charges till date, the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous be dismissed with costs.  There is no force in the contention of learned counsel for OPs as in the repayment schedule (Annexure P-1), details of each installment payable by the complainant with interest and principal have been shown separately and the statement of account (annexed at page 16 to 24) clearly indicates that the complainant had been paying the installments and the amount paid by him was accordingly shown with separate debit, credit and balance amount of loan account. 
   3. It is also clear from the statement of account (at page 20) that till 30.1.2009, an amount of ₹6,825/- was shown as balance amount in the account and further it is also clear from this statement that the said amount of ₹5,000/- was credited by OP-1 on the same day i.e. 30.1.2009. As per the defence of the OPs, since no document qua one time settlement scheme is available with them, as OP-1 is not keeping documents beyond 8 years, complainant should bring on record the said document if it is available with him. 
   4. Annexure P-1 is the material document having been produced by the complainant with his rejoinder which clearly indicates that OP-1 had issued one letter dated 20.1.2009 to the complainant showing that full and final settlement of ₹5,000/- was accepted by the complainant on 29.1.2009 on which date, as per the payment receipt Annexure P-2, the same was deposited by the complainant with the OP. Thus, it is clear from the letter Annexure P-1 that OP-1 had confirmed the offer of full and final settlement of ₹5,000/- in cash (subject to realization) as one installment payable to ICICI Bank Ltd. which was also accepted by the complainant on 29.1.2009.  This letter further indicates that the date mentioned in para 1 of the letter by OP-1 as 20.1.2009 was inadvertently typed as on the same day the complainant could not be asked to pay the entire amount as the clear cut date on the foot of the letter with signatures of the complainant indicates that the said scheme was accepted by the complainant on 29.1.2009 and on the same day he had paid the amount to OP-1, as is also clear from Annexure P-2.  Thus, as the said letter issued by OP-1 qua one time settlement has been proved on record, of which OP-1 has been showing ignorance, it is clear on record that the complainant had paid the amount of ₹5,000/- as per the one time settlement scheme and nothing was outstanding against the complainant after that. 
   5. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered a copy of the No Dues Certificate dated 23.11.2022 issued by the OPs in favour of the complainant indicating that the OPs have confirmed the entire payment by the complainant and accordingly acknowledged that no dues is pending in the loan account of the complainant, making further clear that after dragging the complainant into the present unnecessary litigation for last more than three years, OPs have impliedly admitted the case of the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has successfully proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for the harassment caused to him. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay ₹3,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining direction.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 09/12/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member