- Sri Ajoy Kumar Poddar,
Prop. of Chetna Carrying Corporation,
32, Ezra Street, North Block, 8th Floor,
Suit No. 863, Kolkata-700001. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- ICICI Bank,
Land Mark-Race Course Circle,
Vadodare-390007.
- ICICI Bank,
ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051.
- The Manager, ICICI Bank,
1A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700020. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 32 Dated 23-03-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is the sole proprietor of Chetna Carrying Corporation and continuing the transport business by self employment for the purpose of maintaining livelihood for himself and his family members. Complainant is carrying his business exclusively by means of self employment for livelihood. Complainant took 20 nos. of loan from o.ps. The date of disbursement of the loan amount of his all loan accounts were made on 4.12.06 and the EMI was started on and from 22.2.07. In terms of the authorization schedule issued by o.ps, the complainant duly paid the EMI till 22.6.09 but all on a sudden when complainant took the statement of all loan accounts at that point of time it was revealed that o.ps debited the Credit Facility Organization Charges (CFOC) from the complainant against every loan account. O.ps. also took the signature of the complainant on the blank application form. O.ps. also did not send the copy of the loan agreement. On 27.6.09 complainant received the statement of the loan account wherefrom the complainant first came to know that o.ps. debited CFOC from the complainant to the tune of Rs.70,870/-. Complainant has alleged that o.ps. had deducted the charges illegally. O.ps. replied through e-mail to the complainant that CFOC is not an extra amount and it was included in the first installment only. Complainant further sent a complaint through e-mail to o.ps. asking for clarification of CFOC. At last, on 1.7.09 CFOC has been resolved although o.ps. did not take action for the said matter. Complainant has alleged that though the interest rate had been mentioned @ 5.056% per annum but it was charged @ 8.94% per annum. Therefore, complainant filed the instant case for unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. and praying for refund of excess interest paid by complainant, removing the CFOC from the loan statement along with compensation and cost.
O.ps. appeared before this Forum and filed w/v. In their w/v o.ps. denied all the material allegations interalia stated that the cause of action, if any, arose in the year 2006. Accordingly, the instant complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant did not take any steps for long five years from the time when the alleged cause of action has arisen. Filing of the instant complaint is an absolute afterthought by the complainant and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is pertinent to mention that o.ps. has stated that CFOC has been levied from the very outset and CFOC forms a part of the EMIs and are appropriated internally for business purpose. Complainant had signed the loan agreement only after careful consideration of the terms and conditions and he is fully aware of agreement. The allegation raised by complainant that o.ps. had charged an interest @ 8.94% instead of @ 5.08% is baseless and frivolous. Had this been the case then the complainant would not have repaid 54 installments and would have taken steps against o.ps. much earlier. So, the case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant availed of 20 nos. of loans in 2006 from o.ps. and started to pay the EMIs on and from 22.2.07. The moot question for consideration whether the case is maintainable or not. We have observed that complainant had availed of 20 nos. loans at a time for transport business in the year 2006. Complainant has stated that he is running his business for livelihood by means of self employment, but no scrap of paper has been annexed to that effect. It is not prudent to believe that if any person approaches for loan towards purchasing of 20 trucks / heavy vehicles at a time that he has done such action for his livelihood. So, the instant complainant cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ as defined in C.P. Act, 1986.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
