Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/8/2020

Inderpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

16 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/8/2020
Date of Institution	:	6.1.2020
Date of Decision	:	16.5.2023

 

Inderpal Singh S/o Tilak Raj r/o House No.HB-146, Phase-I, SAS Nagar Mohali.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   ICICI Bank Ltd. Through its Manager Sh. Deepak Ahuja, SCO 319, Sector 38D, Chandigarh.

 .  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh.  J.S. Bagga, counsel for complainant.
		Sh. Kartik vice counsel for Sh. Sandeep Suri, counsel for OP.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

1. Briefly stated the complainant availed loan of Rs.11.00 lakh from the OP bank  in the year 2006 repayable in 180 EMI’s of Rs.13,208/-  granted at smart fix of interest @10.75%. The complainant paid EMIs’s regularly till April 2009 but thereafter because of loss suffered by him in business he could not pay regularly.  The OPs started proceedings under SARFAESI Act  against the complainant and the complainant in order to save his property approached Debts Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh wherein stay was granted subject to payment of Rs.2.00 lakh  and further repayment of remaining installments. The complainant paid amount as per order. Thereafter as a one time settlement the complainant paid Rs.13,50,000/- towards full and final payment  to the OP bank  in June 2019 and the OPs were to issue NOC  alongwith all the documents of the property i.e. allotment letter, permission to mortgage both original and the parties were to withdraw court cases against each other But when the complainant approached  the Ops for issuance of NOC and property documents the OPs has not done the needful. It is alleged that the OPs have cheated the complainant by charging excess processing fee, enforcing insurance of Rs.78,210, increasing EMIs. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The Opposite Parties in the their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant is defaulter of another loan i.e. personal loan which he availed in the year 2008  and the complainant is liable to pay the amount due against the said loan. Thus in terms of section 171 of the Contract Act  the bank has a  general right  of lien over any document or security vested with the bank for the loan facility so availed and the bank is entitled to not release the same till such time the same is cleared. It is averred that as per Annexure C-9 placed on record by the complainant it is  specifically mentioned that in case there is any other loan facility the bank is entitled to not issue the NOC and other documents pertaining to the loan. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The allegation of the complainant is that the OPs have cheated him by charging excess processing fee, enforcing insurance of Rs.78,210, increasing EMI etc. and did not issue  NOC and property documents.
7. On the other hand the defence of the OPs is that the complainant is himself a defaulter of another loan and indulged in cheating by usurping public funds.
8. A perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant in Para No.5, 6, 7, and 9 has averred that the OPs played cheat with him and charged excess processing fee, enforcing insurance of Rs.78,210, increasing EMI etc.  whereas the OP levelled allegations of fraud against the complainant in para No.9 of the reply.
9.  The allegations/averments made by the complainant as well as the OP and documents on record clearly prove that there are allegations of cheating, fraud and forgery on behalf of both the parties against each other. The law is well settled that when there are allegations of fraud, forgery etc., the Consumer Fora has got no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate it and the matter is to be decided by the Civil Court.  Reliance has been placed on Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II(2012) CPJ 151 (NC), wherein it has been held that :-

^{“Complaints which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would required voluminous evidence and consideration are not to be entertained by this Commission – This complaint is an attempt to misuse jurisdiction of this Commission only with a view to save on Court fee payable in a suit before Civil Court – Complaint not maintainable’.}

10.  From the above, we are of the view that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 
11.  In view of the foregoing, we are of the firm opinion that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the complaint.  Therefore, complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. 
12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member