Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/441/2023

BHAWNA MAHAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

RITVIK GARG & RITIK GUPTA

22 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/441/2023
Date of Institution	:	12/9/2023
Date of Decision	:	22/7/2024

 

Bhawna Mahajan w/o Amit Mahajan, House no. 308 GH-102, Sector 20, Panchkula Haryana-134116

Complainant

Versus

 

ICICI Bank Limited through it Managing Director, SCO-82- SECTOR 46C- Chandigarh, 160047.

 

Registered Office: ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara 390007, Gujarat, India.

Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ritvik Garg, Advocate for complainant alongwith complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Atul Goyal, Advocate for OP alongwith Ms. Tavishi Trivedi, Relationship Manager, ICICI Bank.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant is having her salary account with the OP bank since 2014. On 24.5.2022 the complainant received a text message and email from the OP bank regarding a lien which has been marked on the salary account of the complainant for Rs.2,43,552/- against outstanding dues in the ICICI bank loan account which does not belong to the complainant or its family members. Immediately after receiving the message, the complainant checked the particular of the loan account with the salary account and enquired through the CIBIL report against the Pan card of the complainant. After going through the account details and the CIBIL report, neither such loan was showing to the complainant against the salary account of the complainant nor such loan details were mentioned in the CIBIL report of the complainant. Again on 31st May 2023 complainant was shocked after receiving a text message & E-Mail from the opposite bank about the debit of Rs. 2,43,552/- from the salary account of the complainant toward the outstanding dues in the ICICI bank loan account XX9518 which was not belonging to the complainant. After receiving the text and to verify the same, the complainant checked the bank statement of the salary account and complainant was shocked to see, that
Rs. 2,43,552/- has been debited from the bank account on 30th May 2023 without any authorization and prior permission by her. On 2.6.2023 the complainant filed official complaint with the banking grievance cell through email  and it was informed that the grievance will be addressed by 7.6.2023. It is averred that the salary account of the complainant was opened in the year 2014 but the loan which has been availed as per the record of the opposite bank was bank in year 2006, therefore it is impossible to charge a lien over an account which never exist at the time of availing loan facilities. On 7th June 2023, the bank management in a totally illegal and arbitrary manner rejected the complaint with the reason that as per the matching parameter the lien has been marked on the saving account of the complainant. Further, it was mentioned in the concerned mail that various sufficient opportunity was given to clear the due against the loan account. Thereafter the complainant again filed a complaint with the management but the same was also rejected. It is alleged that despite repeated requests of the complainant her grievance was not redressed by the OP bank. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Party  in its reply while admitting the  factual matrix of the case stated that as per the records, the Complainant's name, mother's name, father's name, spouse name, photographs, residence address, signatures etc. matches with the credentials submitted by the applicant at the time of applying for and availing the loan bearing number LIDEL00006549518. There was default in the repayment and the bank was constrained to issue multiple notices and reminders over the period of time to the Complainant but the Complainant had failed to clear the outstanding amount and hence the bank exercising its right of banker's lien had marked the lien on the salary account and recovered the outstanding amount after giving due time and opportunities to the Complainant. The Complainant has already been informed about the matching parameters vide email dated 09.06.2023. Thus there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. As per case of the complainant the OPs have wrongly debited amount of Rs.2,43,552/- from her salary account without her authorization and permission and also without verification  as the said loan was never availed by the complainant.
7. On the other hand the stand taken by the OP is that in fact as per record the Complainant's name, mother's name, father's name, spouse name, photographs, residence address, signatures etc. matches with the credentials submitted by the applicant at the time of availing the loan. Even the signatures are matching with the credentials submitted by the complainant at the time of applying an availing loan. As the complainant failed to clear the outstanding amount, hence,  the bank exercised its right  of banker’s lien and marked the lien on the salary account and rightly recovered the outstanding amount after giving due time and  opportunities to the complainant.
8. The counsel for the complainant submitted that  the documents submitted by the Ops are fabricated and fake one as the driving license, pan card etc. placed on record by the OP are fake one  and requested that action needs to be taken against the OP for tendering fake and forged documents under IPC as the same is offence under IPC.
9. After going through the record it transpires that the issue involved in the case in hand is of complex nature as the allegations of fraud and forgery have been made by the complainant against the OP in respect of documents produced by it and in such type of matter voluminous evidence is required.
10.  The law is well settled that when there are allegations of fraud, forgery etc., the Consumer Commission  has got no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate it and the matter is to be decided by the Civil Court.  Reliance is placed on Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II(2012) CPJ 151 (NC), wherein it has been held that :-

“Complaints which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would required voluminous evidence and consideration are not to be entertained by this Commission. – This complaint is an attempt to misuse jurisdiction of this Commission only with a view to save on Court fee payable in a suit before Civil Court – Complaint not maintainable.”

11.    In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm opinion that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the complaint.  Therefore, complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance. 
12.   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
22/7/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member