DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.665 of 2015

                                                           Date of institution:  10.12.2015                                                     Date of decision   :  16.05.2018

Kuldip Singh son of Late Raghbir Singh resident of House No.189, Wn-1, Mundi Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

…….Complainant

Vs

1.     Allahabad Bank, Branch NH21, St. Waryam Nagar, Desu Majra, Kharar, District Mohali.

2.     ICICI Bank Ltd. Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadobara, through its authorised representative.

3.     ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai through its authorised representative.

                                                                ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     None for the complainant.

                OP No.1 ex-parte.

                Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for OP No.2 and 3.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant claims to have purchased Swift Zi car bearing No.CH-01-AY-8763 of 2014 model on being financed by ICICI Bank through its authorized representative.  Down payment of Rs.3.00 lakhs was made by complainant at that time out of the total sale consideration amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs. So Rs.4.00 lakhs were financed by ICICI Bank. Complainant claims to be having bank account in Allahabad Bank at Kharar from where the EMIs of Rs.8,698/- of the financed loan were used to be deducted. These EMIs were used to be paid regularly by complainant without delay. However, after 11.08.2015, complainant got knowledge about insufficient funds in his account at the time when he visited LG showroom for purchase of LCD on installments. LCD dealer checked the bank status of complainant and refused to finance the LCD by claiming that he was not eligible for the said finance because of default in his loan track account. Complainant claims to have maintained sufficient balance in his account for paying the installments and that is why he issued cheque to ICICI Bank for paying installments. However, OP bounced the cheque of complainant, despite the fact that he was having sufficient amounts in his account on 14.01.2015; 11.02.2015; 11.03.2015; 11.04.2015, 12.05.2015 and 11.08.2015 respectively. OP No.2 on 11.08.2015 made statement in the loan detail as if complainant has not sufficient funds in his account and the installment is due. Complainant claims to have credited/deposited Rs. 3.00 lakhs in his bank account on 03.08.2015. It is claimed that complainant was having amount of Rs.2,80,000/- in his credit, but the OPs were showing in the loan statement report as if there are insufficient funds in the account of the complainant and that is why dishonor of the cheque took place. That act and conduct of both banks lowered the loan track score of complainant rendering him ineligible for other finance/loan. OP deliberately and with malafide intention bounced the above said cheques and as such the same alleged to have caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant. So this complaint filed for seeking direction against OPs to pay Rs.2.00 lakhs as compensation for mental harassment and agony.

2.             OP No.1 is ex-parte in this case. However, OP No.2 and 3 in the joint written reply admitted as if they are financer of the complainant with regard to purchase of car by him. It is claimed that OP No.2 and 3 being financer presented the ECS in bank account No.50035756861 of Allahabad Bank of the complainant, but the same was not honoured due to recording of remarks of insufficient funds. It is claimed that ECS mandate issued on 11.08.2015 was not honoured. In view of this, it is claimed that main dispute is between complainant and OP No.1. OP No.2 and 3 claims that they are nothing to do with the dispute between complainant and OP No.1 arising out of non clearance of mandate. OP No.2 and 3 just to get money from OP No.1 and as such by denying other averments of the complaint prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and C-2 and then closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 and 3 tendered in evidence Ex.OP-2/1 affidavit of Shri Dinesh Garg, Manager and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments submitted by complainant and OP No.2 and 3.  Oral arguments of counsel for OP No.2 and 3 heard and records gone through.

5.             From the pleadings of the parties and the affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant as well as Ex.OP-2/1 of Shri Dinesh Garg, Manager of ICICI Bank and loan account statement Ex.C-1, it is made out that complainant contracted loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs from ICICI bank for purchase of car by agreeing to pay EMIs of Rs.8,698/- each through issue of ECS mandate of ICICI Bank to Allahabad Bank because complainant is holding saving bank account with Allahabad Bank, Kharar. Copy of statement of account of complainant of the saving account held by him with OP No.1 bank is produced on record as Ex.C-2. From the perusal of Ex.C-1, it is made out that on issue of mandate for recovery of EMIs of Rs.8,698/- each on 10.01.2015; 10.02.2015; 10.03.2015; 10.04.2015 and 11.05.2015, those were not honoured because of mention of wrong account name. However, honour of those mandates subsequently took place for the months of January 2015 to May, 2015. If the wrong account name is mentioned resulting in bouncing of the cheques, then fault does not lie with OP No.1 or with OP No.2 and 3 because the cheques with correct account name were required to be submitted by complainant with its financer namely ICICI Bank. So deficiency in service on part of OPs regarding these bounced mandates during period from January 2015 to May, 2015 is not there. Likewise bouncing of cheques on 11.06.2015 as well as on 11.07.2015 took place due to network failure. However, the amounts of EMIs during the period from June 2015 to July 2015 subsequently realised. Bouncing of cheque mandate further took place on 11.08.2015 due to insufficient funds in the account of complainant is a fact borne from last entry of date 11.08.2015 incorporated on the third page of loan account statement Ex.C-1.

6.             After going through copy of statement of account of complainant regarding his saving account held with OP No.1, it is made out that complainant deposited cash amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs with OP No.1 on 03.08.2015 and thereafter withdrew Rs.1,500/- through ATM on 12.08.2015, but Rs.1,500/- more on 17.08.2015. So from this copy of statement of account Ex.C-2, it is made out that complainant was having sufficient funds in his saving account with OP No.1 from 03.08.2015 to 17.08.2015. Despite possession of sufficient funds by complainant in his account with OP No.1, cheque dated 11.08.2015 was bounced due to insufficient funds (as made out from contents of Ex.C-1) and as such it is obvious that fault lay with OP No.1 in not honouring the cheque issued by complainant, despite the fact that he was having more than Rs.8,698/- in his account on 11.08.2015. Dishonour of the issued cheque of complainant by his banker on account of insufficiency of funds certainly amounts to unfair trade practice and also to deficiency in service. Certainly submission advanced by counsel for OP No.2 and 3 has force that ICICI Bank was just to recover EMIs on issue of mandate as per wishes of complainant to his bank namely OP No.1. As on issue of this mandate, dishonor of cheque took place wrongly due to insufficiency of funds in account of complainant, and as such fault lies with OP No.1 and not with OP No.2 and 3. So certainly complaint against OP No.2 and 3 is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on part of OP No.2 and 3. That deficiency in service certainly is on part of OP No.1 because despite availability of more than sufficient funds in the account of complainant, it dishonored of the issued cheque. So mental agony and harassment virtually caused to complainant due to wrong act of OP No.1 of dishonouring of the cheque issued by complainant. Complainant, therefore, entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment from OP No.1 alongwith litigation expenses of reasonable amount, but not from OP No.2 and 3. Dishonour of cheque virtually took place due to fault of OP No.1 only once, as discussed above, and as such it will be fit and appropriate to allow compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and harassment plus litigation expenses of Rs.2,500/-, more so when none has appeared on behalf of OP No.1 to contest the claim of complainant.

7.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint allowed against OP No.1 in terms that OP No.1 will pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and even will pay litigation expenses of Rs.2,500/- to complainant. Complaint against OP No.2 and 3 is dismissed.  Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation cost be made within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of order. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.   File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

May 16, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                                   (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)                                                                 Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member