DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 500/2008
(1) Dr. Priyadarshni Upadhyay
- Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi – 110049
(2) Mrs. Usha Upadhyay
- Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi – 110049
(3) Ms. Himani Upadhyay
- Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi – 110049 ….Complainants
Versus
(1) The Manager
ICICI Bank Limited
SEA, BPN Railway Road,
NIT Faridabad – 121001
(2) The Manager
ICICI, S 13, First Floor
Green Park, Uphar Cinema Complex
Green Park, New Delhi – 110016
(3) Managing Director
ICICI Bank Ltd.
ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai - 400051 .…Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 11.08.08 Date of Order : 06.09.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
The case of the Complainants, in nutshell, is that they had taken a housing loan of Rs.25,11,646/- vide Loan Account No. LBFDB00001229054 in December 2005 against property bearing Flat No. 506, Ashadey CGHS Ltd., GH-2B, Sector-21D, Faribadbad-121005, Haryana for the term of 240 months with floating interest @ 7.25% from the OPs; that the said property was later on sold to one Sh. Manas Biswas on 30.1.2007 and according to the complainants, complainants made a request to the OPs for prepayment of said Home Loan account. The OPs vide letter dated 14.2.2007 became ready to foreclose the said home loan account of complainants against full and final payment of Rs. 519339.61p and also opened the housing loan account of Sh. Manas Biswas vide Account No. LBFDB00001487445 against the same property. The complainants on the same day paid the settlement amount with the OPs but the OPs after repeated requests did not return the unutilized postdated cheques to the complainants; that the OPs illegally tried to get debited an amount of Rs. 22,182/- on 11.4.2007, Rs. 24716/- on 7.5.2007 and Rs. 24716/- on 7.6.2007 from the saving bank account No. 50310000108296 with HDFC Bank Ltd, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi of complainant no. 2 through ECS but the same were returned due to insufficient funds for which the OPs charged ECS return charges including service tax of Rs. 224.48p on each ECS transaction. The complainants made several requests to the OPs personally as well as over telephone to immediately stop illegal withdrawal of the money from their bank account through ECS and to refund the ECS return charges and unutilized postdated cheques but in vain; that the OPs vide their letters dated 18.8.2007 and 11.12.2007 informed the complainants that they had lost the unutilized postdated cheques of the complainants and demanded the fresh set of security PDC. It is further stated that the complainant-1 booked a flat in May 2007 and deposited the earnest amount/booking amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the builder and applied for a housing loan to the OPs but the OPs without considering the proper facts denied to sanction the home loan because as per their record, complainant-1 was a defaulter due to which the builder forfeited the amount of Rs. 50,000/-. It is stated that nothing happened despite service of legal notice dated 10.3.2008 sent by the complainants through registered AD and UPC post on 15.3.2008 but, on the other hand, the OPs sent the recovery agents who forcibly obtained a cheque of Rs. 73586/- from the complainants and in this regard a police complaint was lodged with PS Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainants have filed the present complaint for issuing following directions to the OPs:
“(a) Pay a sum of Rs. 74261/- (Rs.675 ECS return charge and Rs. 73586/-) to the complainants with upto date interest @ 24% w.e.f. 11.4.2007;
(b) Pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- against loss of house and booking amount by the complainants;
(c ) Pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the physical and mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants;
(d) Pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- toward loss of dignity & honour by the complainants;
(e) Pay a sum of Rs. 11,000/- towards the cost of the present case to the complainant
(f) Kindly may direct to the opposite parties to return the unutilized postdated cheques to complainants.”
In their reply, OPs have submitted that loan account No. LBFDB00001229054 having been foreclosed, no cause of action exists against the OPs. At the same time it is submitted that on 14.2.2007 the complainants made cash payment of Rs. 5,19,340/- but, however, it is stated that even after paying this amount the complainant had remained liable to make the payment attributed to the previous unpaid instalments amounting to Rs. 1,98,708/-. It is submitted that the cheque of Rs. 73,586/- given by the complainant was also dishonoured by the complainants’ bank. It is pleaded that the complainants have suppressed the material facts from this forum. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainants have filed rejoinder to the reply of OPs.
Complainants have filed their separate affidavits in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Sanju Kumar, Manager, Legal has been filed on behalf of OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of complainants.
None has appeared to advance arguments on behalf of the parties. We have carefully gone through the file.
In his affidavit the witness of OPs has reiterated that even after making the cash payment of Rs. 5,19,340/-, the complainants had remained liable to make the payment attributed to previous unpaid installments. Copy of the statement of account of complainants’ home loan account is marked as RW1/1 (not marked as exhibit number on the document). However, the complainants have relied on the letter dated 14.2.2007 vide which the OPs had, according to them, become ready to foreclose their home loan account against full and final payment of Rs. 5,19,339.61p. They have marked the copy of the said letter as Ex. 3 (Annex A-3 and not marked as Ex-3). Vide this letter the OPs asked the complainants to make the payment of Rs. 5,19,339.61p in response to the complainants’ request for foreclosure of their home loan account. The notes appended to the letter read as under:
“1. Above calculation assumes tht your last installment has been cleared.
- We have taken the date of foreclosure as February 14, 2007. For each day beyond this date an additional interest will be charged at the rate of Rs. 631.63 per day.
- If you foreclose a loan after march 7, 2007, the installment for the following month will become payable
- We will return your unutilized postdated cheques when you foreclose the loan.
- If you foreclose the loan on or after 18th of the month, request you to please make a stop payment for your next month installment.
- The above mentioned amount is valid subject to clearance of all the cheques/installments till date. If you decide to foreclose, please make payments of the above “Total amount payable” through a cheque of draft favouring ICICI Bank Ltd.”
From a bare perusal of the notes, it becomes crystal clear that the amount of Rs. 5,19,339.61p had not been deposited by the complainants towards full and final settlement. There may be lapses on the part of the officers/officials of the OPs because they ought to have asked the complainants to pay the entire amount towards full and final settlement. However, the complainants also cannot be allowed to take benefit of this wrong committed by the officers/officials of the OPs.
According to the complainants, copy of the payment slip of Rs. 73,586/- dated 8.5.2008 is Ex. 11 (Annex. 11). The Annexure 11 is the copy of the payment receipt bearing No. L 0208 904267C dated 8.5.2008 vide which an amount of Rs. 73,586/- towards EMI overdue payment had been taken from complainant-1 vide a cheque. No document has been placed on record on behalf of the complainants to show that the said cheque on presentation by the OPs to the bankers of the complainants had been cleared or payment made. Therefore, complainants have also not proved that the said cheque amount has been encashed by the OPs.
So far as the alleged loss of Rs. 50,000/- incurred by the complainant No. 1 towards payment to a builder is concerned, OPs cannot be put to blame for the same as keeping in view the past records of the complainants, OPs had refused to sanction further house loan to them. Moreover, non-sanctioning of the home loan by the OP bank is not a consumer dispute.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 06.09.2016.
Case No. 500/08
06.09.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
