Haryana

StateCommission

A/125/2015

ICICI BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.R.P.MAAN & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.SINGAL

09 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     125  of 2015

Date of Institution:      06.02.2015

Date of Decision :       09.10.2015

 

1.     ICICI Bank, Kaithal Branch, Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     ICICI Bank, Regional office, Opposite Mini Secretariat, Sector-12, Karnal, through its Deputy General Manager.

3.     ICICI Bank, Head Office, Landmark, Race Course Circle, Badodra through its Managing Director.

                                     Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

Versus

1.      Dr. R.P. Maan C/o Maan Skin Hospital & Laser Centre, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Vikas Jindal, Jat School Market, Opposite Jat School Ground, Kaithal.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.4

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent No.1.

                             Shri Ravi Malik, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

ICICI Bank-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated December 22^nd, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Kaithal, in Complaint No.282 of 2012.

2.      Dr. R.P. Mann, approached ICICI Bank-appellants, for the balance take over of his existing loan from L.I.C. Housing Finance and Top Up amount, in November, 2011, vide application dated November 8^th, 2011. The appellants sanctioned loan of Rs.23,50,000/- vide application No.7790434929 and 7790455227 on November 17^th, 2011. Accordingly, the appellants issued sanction letters Exhibit RA and RB which contained detailed terms and conditions and the same were accepted by the complainant by appending his signature thereupon. The complainant paid Rs.23,164/- towards non-refundable administrative charges, through cheque No.003494.  However, the complainant did not avail the loan. He sought refund of the amount charged from him as non-refundable administrative charges etc. which the appellants refused.

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.23,164/- plus Rs.7500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization and Rs.1.00 lac as consolidated damages and compensation.

4.      The opposite parties-appellants contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the complainant had availed loan from L.I.C. Housing Finance and Top Up amount for purchasing a new machine namely Light sheer ET DIODE. However, later on the complainant approached the appellants through opposite party No.4 – Vikas Jindal, to take over the balance loan outstanding in his name for which the amount of Rs.23,164/- was charged as non-refundable administrative/processing charges.

5.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted complaint issuing direction to the appellants as under:-

“……we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay all the amount i.e. Rs.23,164/- + Rs.7500/- which the Ops had taken from the complainant on account of process fee and other expenses as loan money has not been paid to the complainant. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable, let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its realization.”

6.      It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had approached the appellants to take over the balance loan of Rs.23,50,000/-, which was outstanding in his name towards the loan obtained by him from L.I.C. Housing Finance. It is also not in dispute that the appellants had charged Rs.23,164/- towards non-refundable administrative charges etcetera. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellants denied releasing the loan amount to the complainant, rather, it was the complainant himself who changed his mind not to obtain the loan. Rather appellants had offered at the time of admission of appeal that they were still ready to release the sanctioned loan amount. Therefore, the appellants were not liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant as administrative charges with respect to the loan processing file. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts of the case. Hence, the impugned order cannot sustain.

7.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.15,335/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 09.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL