DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 5^th June, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC.No.125/2009

Chithambaram.V,

S/o.Late Vasu,

Sankarankandath House,

K.N.Pudur, Kanjikode,

Palakkad - Complainant

(By Adv.M.Rajesh)

Vs

1. The Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

West Fort Road,

Palakkad.

(Adv.M.Ramesh)

2. The Manager,

Vehicle Loan Section,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Shoranur Road,

Thrissur. - Opposite parties

(Adv.M.Ramesh)

O R D E R

By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

The complainant had availed vehicle loan in his name to his vehicle registered as KL-09 M-8902 for an amount of Rs.5,30,000/-. As per the agreement, the complainant had given 48 post dated cheque for EMI. The amount of EMI is Rs.13,007/-. The complainant has purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood by way of transport of building materials. The complainant was regular in repayment of the monthly installments to the opposite parties. The opposite parties many

times threatened complainant by saying that they will take away his vehicle if he did not clear off the dues within the stipulated period. They further threatened at the time of the payment of the monthly installments that they will any way take away the vehicle even if there was no due towards them. Therefore the complainant is forced to clear off the dues to the opposite parties before the actual tenure date of 01/01/2009. At the time of the closure of the amount towards the liability of the complainant, the opposite party has taken excess interest of Rs.9,080.45 and also as delay in payment charges of Rs.11,633/-. The opposite parties computed over due charges and excess interest and cheque bouncing charges illegally upon the account. Thereafter complainant caused a lawyer notice to the opposite parties demanding return of the excess amount collected on 29/12/2007. But the opposite parties neither repaid the amount nor sent any reply. All these facts of the opposite parties comes into the category of clear deficiency in service and the act of opposite parties incurred loss to the tune of Rs.20,713.45 to the complainant. Hence the complaint. The complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to correct the irregularities in the accounts of the opposite parties and to refund the complainant an amount of Rs.20,713.45 and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with notice charges of Rs.250/- and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The averment that the complainant was regular in repayment of the monthly installment is false. The say of the complainant that the opposite parties many times threatened him that they will take away the vehicle if he did not clear of the dues within the

stipulated period is frivolous and false. After receiving the lawyer notice the opposite parties contacted the complainant and clarified the amounts which has been collected at the time of closing the loan. The complainant was very much satisfied by the clarification made by the opposite parties. So the opposite parties did not send reply notice. Further the opposite parties stated that the loan amount was closed on 03/10/2007 for Rs.2,12,914/- and the loan period was from 01/01/2005 to 01/01/2009. Since the loan was closed on 3/10/2007, foreclosure charge of Rs.9,393/- and Rs.85/- as interest at termination was collected. The opposite parties stated that as the complainant closed his loan before the expiry of loan period, the bank has the right to take foreclosure charges. The complainant was a defaulter of the loan amount. The total over due charges regarding the default was Rs.3,116/- out of that Rs.2,660/- has already paid before closing the loan. The opposite party stated that the vehicle was using for commercial purpose. So the complaint will not come within the purview of consumer disputes and complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.

Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits and documents. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite parties.

Issues to be considered are;

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issue No.1:

We perused relevant documents on record. The first contention raised by the opposite parties is that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Madan Kumar Sing (D) V District Magistrate Sulthanpur and Others [IV(2009)CPJ 3(SC)] held that the complainant had bought the vehicle to be used exclusively by him for the purpose of earning his livelihood is a consumer. Thus buyers or goods or commodities for self consumption in economic activities, in which they are engaged would be consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Hence this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

Issues 2 & 3:

The complainant had availed vehicle loan from the opposite parties is an undisputed fact. The loan period was from 01/01/2005 to 01/01/2009 and the amount of EMI is Rs.13,007/-. As per Ext.A1 series, the loan was closed on 3/10/2007 for Rs.2,21,914/-. The opposite parties stated that the loan was closed on 3/10/2007, foreclosure charge has been taken as Rs.9,393/- and Rs.85/- as interest of termination. Further the opposite parties stated that the complainant closed his loan before the expiry of loan period and the bank has the right to take foreclosure charges. According to Ext.B1 the amount financed was Rs.5,30,000/- and the loan period was 01/01/2005 to 01/01/2009. But the complainant has closed his loan on 3/10/2007. As per Ext.B1 the principle component at termination on 3/10/2007 is Rs.1,84,751/-. According to Ext.A2, the outstanding principle amount

on October 2007 is Rs.1,84,750.78. The complainant has paid Rs.2,21,914/- as per Receipt No.O08073521302 on 3/10/2007 marked as Ext.A1 series. The complainant stated that at the time of the closure of the loan the opposite parties has taken excess interest of Rs.9,080.45 and also Rs.11,633/- as delay in payment. But the opposite parties stated that foreclosure charge has been taken as Rs.9,393/- and Rs.85/- as interest at termination. No documentary evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show that the bank has the right to take foreclosure charges. Also the opposite parties has not produced evidence for taking excess interest of Rs.9,080.45 and delay in payment charges of Rs.11,633/-. No statement of account has produced by the opposite parties for this aspect. According to Ext.A1 series the complainant has paid 31 monthly installment before closing the loan on 3/10/2007. As per Ext.B1 two installments on 1/9/07 and 1/10/07 was due on closing the loan amount. The complainant was a defaulter of the loan amount in certain months and at that time due charges regarding the default was remitted to the opposite parties. The opposite parties has not produced evidence to show that the bank has the right to take foreclosure charges. In view of the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint allowed.

We direct opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.20,713.45 (Rupees Twenty thousand seven hundred thirteen and paise forty five only) with 12% interest from the date of closing the loan amount on 3/10/07 to date of the order and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One

thousand only) as cost to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the whole amount shall carry further interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 5^th June, 2010

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Date of filing: 18/07/2009

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1(Series) - Receipts

Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Amortization Schedule

Ext.A3 – Photocopy of lawyer notice, postal receipts, acknowledgement card etc

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Photocopy of statement

Cost(Allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost