F.A.No.88 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.622 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD

Between

Soma R/o MIG-33, First Floor, APIIC, Colony,
                                                        Appellant/complainant

1. The General Manager
   ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Towers
   Wall Street Plaza, 1-11-256, Road No.1
   
2. The Regional Sale Manager,
   ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Towers,
   Wall Street Plaza, 1-11-2-256, Road No.1
   
3. ICICI Bank Limited
   Mumbai-001
4. ICICI Bank Limited
   Race Course Circle, Badodara-007
   (R3 is not a necessary party)

Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant                      M/s

Counsel for the Respondents                         Notice held                                                         Served (R4)

        QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

 MONDAY THE THIRTY  DAY OF DECEMBER

                                TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri

                                        ***

1.             The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The appellant applied for sanction   personal loan to the extent of `5,00,000/- and the respondent-bank approved the application subject to the appellant furnishing the required documents. The respondent-bank credited the loan amount to the credit of the savings bank account of the appellant on 14.072007.

2.             The appellant filed complaint stating that he was not allowed by respondent-bank to withdraw the loan amount till 20.07.2007 on the premise that some paper work was to be completed and the respondent-bank issued payment schedule to him in the first week of 2008 showing deduction of the 1^st EMI of `14,950/- which he was informed to be payable on 5.09.2007 and he lodged complaint to the effect which had drawn no response from the respondent-bank . The second installment was deducted from his S.B.Account on 6.09.2007. The appellant had sent e-mail on 22.12.2007 and 25.01.2008. The appellant noticed the dates of repayment in the agreement corrected  5.09.2007 to 5.08.2011 as 5.08.2007 to 5.07.2011. Without taking any action, the respondent-bank issued notice demanding for payment of the installments.

3.             The respondent-bank resisted the claim on the premise that the appellant availed the loan amount of `5st loan installment would start from the month of September, 2007. The respondent-bank has lien over the amount and has adjusted the amount towards discharge of the part of the loan amount.

4.             The  has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A20.  On behalf of the respondent-bank the Legal Officer & GPA Holder  his affidavit and the documents, ExB1 to B3. 

5.             The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the premise that appellant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-bank. The District Forum observed that there was correction of last due  in the credit facility application form which is made as 5.07.20011 and there is no correction as to the first due date.

6.             Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the loan was processed on 16.07.2007 with a promise that the EMI would start from 5.09.2007 and end on 5.09.2011 and the same is mentioned in the loan application form. It is contended that it is mentioned in the loan application form that for the loan sanctioned in first fortnight of January, the EMI would commence from the next February and for the loan sanctioned in the second fortnight of January, the EMI would start from the next March. It is contended that the due dates in the loan application are corrected from 5.09.2007 to 5.08.2011 as 5.08.2007 to 5.07.2011.  It is contended that the 1^st installment was deducted within 20 days from the date of processing the loan application which is against the terms of the agreement. It is contended that the appellant had issued notice and sent mails as also he had cleared the loan amount.

The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from misappreciation of fact or law?

7.             The period of the loan payment schedule is questioned on the premise that the loan application was processed on 16.07.2007 and as per the terms of the Agreement and assurance given by the respondent-bank, the 1^st loan installment would commence from Septemberst installment would start from August

8.             The appellant has stated that if the loan application is processed and the loan amount is disbursed from 1-07-2007 till 14-07-2007, the payment schedule would commence from the month of August in his affidavit that:

“On 14^th of July,2007 I received a telephone call from   I had submitted all the necessary documents to th September 2007”.

9.             The appellant having knowledge of payment schedule proportionate to the grant of loan in a month contended that an employee of the respondent-bank assured him that 14^th July ,2007 is a special day  for sanction of personal loan and if the loan is obtained on the day, the payment schedule would commence from September,2007. As against what is stated in his affidavit, the appellant   mentioned in his e-mail addressed to the respondent-bank that he got the loan application processed and the loan amount disbursed and credited to his savings bank account on 15.07.2007. The first paragraph of the e-mail dated 22.12.2007runs as follows:

“I am Soma   I am offered a pre-approved loan from ICICI bank of Rs.5  I was called to th 2007 in this regard and was suggested to take the loan (start the loan process) on 15^th July, so that the first EMI will reflect on 5^th September 2007.  I did the same and I got the loan and was not allowed to withdraw the money till 20^th July due to loan process happening at your end.  Loan account No.LPHYD00010902229.   

10.            What the appellant attempted to contend is that though the loan was sanctioned on 14.07.2007, he was not permitted to withdraw the amount from his savings bank account on the premise that some paper work was required to be carried out and till 20^th July`5`72.58. The appellant has withdrawn an amount of `2,500/- from his savings bank account on 19.07.2007. Thus, the the appellant’s knowledge of disbursement of loan on 14.07.2007 and withdrawal of an amount of `2,500/- from the loan amount by the appellant.

11.            The legal officer of the respondent-bank in his affidavit has stated that the appellant authorized the respondent-bank to deduct the amount from his savings bank account and accordingly the respondent-bank deducted the installment amount from his account. He has stated that:

“I submit for better appreciation of the facts this opposite party respectfully submits that at the request of the complainant and considering his track record, the complainant was offered a personal loan   As per the repayment schedule the complainant is bound to pay the EMIs from the next month which falls in the month of August 2007.  Accordingly the opposite party started deducting the EMI through Auto debit from the month of August 2007.  It is respectfully submitted that in order to avoid the payments the complainant has created the cock and bull story and filed the present case which is neither maintainable on facts nor in law.  It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant was availed the loan of Rs.5

12.            The appellant has not raised any objection till 10.09.2007 as to how the first loan installment amount was deducted from his account in the month of August

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.  The parties shall bear their own costs.

MEMBER

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                            KMK*