Punjab

Sangrur

CC/107/2018

Pardeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S. Rotal

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                        Complaint No. 107

Instituted on:    01.03.2018

                                                                        Decided on:      15.03.2019

 

 

Pardeep Kumar Mittal, Chartered Accountant, C/O P.K. Mittal and Company, Ram Mandir Street, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

 

1.     ICICI Bank Limited, Branch Office: Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     Transunion CIBIL Limited, One India Bulls Centre, Tower 2-A, 19^th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai through its Managing Director.

             ….Opposite parties

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT       :      Shri Rajinder Sharma, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1               :      Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate.       

FOR OP NO.2                              :      Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate.

 

Quorum

         

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                    Manisha, Member

ORDER:   

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

 

1.             Shri Pardeep Kumar Mittal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is having a saving bank account number 001701032656 with the OP number 1, which is in operation since 2.11.2014. The complainant joined the OP number 1 as an employee, due to which the bank account of the complainant was converted into ICICI Bank Staff Category account and the complainant left the job.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant was paid all the dues in full and final settlement.  Thereafter the complainant took car loan as co-applicant under account number LASAN00030803796 and all the instalment were paid in time and consequently the said loan was foreclosed in the month of April 2017 and NOC was duly issued. 

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that on 28.09.2016 the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.1,10,000/- in favour of one Sachin Singh drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Branch Sangrur and on the same day the complainant issued cheque of Rs.50,000/- from his ICICI Bank account for transferring the amount in Kotak Mahindra Bank in order to encash the cheque issued in favour of Sachin Singh, but the complainant was shocked on 1.10.2016 when he came to know that the cheque was dishonoured by the OP for the reason of insufficient funds, as the OP number 1 wrongly transferred the amount of Rs.53,932/- under lien without knowledge of the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that on 5.10.2016 the complainant was again shocked to receive a legal notice from the counsel of Shri Sachin Singh due to dishonour of the cheque.  The complainant has further alleged that the complainant suffered loss as the OP number 1 wrongly and illegally transferred the amount of Rs.53,932/- from the account of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice dated 15.10.2016 upon the OP number 1 to call upon reimburse the amount of Rs.53,932.05 and further to pay compensation of Rs.10.00 Lacs, but all in vain.  The complainant also filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sangrur against OP number 1 which is pending. 

 

3.             Further case of the complainant is that in the month of October, 2017, the complainant applied for the house loan with HDFC Bank for purchase a flat at Zirakpur and submitted all the documents, but the officials of the bank refused to sanction loan on the ground that in the CIBIL report maintained by OP number 2, the complainant is shown to be a defaulter, as there is a overdue amount of Rs.5,61,746/- against the complainant, therefore, the loan was refused.  Due to the said act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant suffered a huge loss and has prayed that the Ops be directed to clear the over due status of the complainant against PAN card number AKOPK5299F from CIBIL data base and further to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and litigation expenses.

 

4.             In reply of the complaint filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature, that the complaint is not maintainable as an amount of Rs.5,33,224/- is due against him on 30.11.2016 with interest, but despite that the complainant has filed the present complaint, that the complainant has already filed a complaint number 933 of 2016 which is pending in the Permanent Lok Adalat, as such, complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, it is stated that an amount of Rs.5,33,224/- is due against the complainant as on 30.11.2016 towards staff loan. It is further stated that since no payment was received from the complainant, therefore, the bank has exercised the legal rights and powers available to it.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

5.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is stated that the present complaint is not maintainable against OP number 2, as the complainant is not a consumer. It is denied that the OP number 2 declared the complainant as a defaulter and it is submitted that the OP number 2 does not declare any person or entity as a defaulter. OP number 2 is a credit information company which provides the credit information report on the basis the credit information submitted by the member banks and financial institutions. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

 

6.             The complainant has produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/5 and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit along with Annexure R-1 and closed evidence.

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.  No written arguments have been filed by the complainant.

 

8.             It is admitted fact that complainant is having a saving bank account no. 001701032656 with the OP number 1. The said account is in operation since 02/11/2004. That the complainant joined the Op.no.1 as his employee. Due to the employment of the complainant with opposite party number 1, the bank account of the complainant was converted into ICICI Bank Staff Category. The complainant left the job of the bank in the month of April /2010. Further in the month of Nov/2014, the complainant being the co-applicant obtained a car loan from opposite party number 1 and paid all the installments of the said loan in time and consequently the said loan was fore closed in the month of April 2017 and NOC was duly issued by the Op.no.1 to the complainant. That the complainant issued a cheque of Rs.1,10,000/- in favor of Sachin Singh and on the same day issued the cheque of Rs.50,000/- from his ICICI bank account for transferring the amount in the Kotak Mahindra Bank and the opposite party number 1 dishonored the cheque for want of sufficient funds. While going through the reply of the Op.no.1, it has been found that the complainant during his tenure as the employee of the opposite party number 1 availed the three number personal loans with order numbers 42333, 46516, 87815 and did not pay the loans, due to which the principal outstanding as on 30/11/2016 was Rs.1,73,514/- and total outstanding as on 31/11/2016 was Rs.5,33,224/-. The Ops in there reply submitted that after leaving the job of the OP number 1 the complainant was requested to make the payment but he refused to make the payment. Accordingly lien on his account was initiative on 22/08/2016 and was intimated vide letter dated 03/08/2016 and thereafter an amount of Rs.53,932/- available in his account was debited towards part payment of the above unsettled staff loan bearing number 46514. But, the complainant never mentioned the status of the loans availed by him from OP number 1 and has not rebutted the claim of the OP number 1 in his reply.

 

9.             In view of the fore going facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in rending service on the part of the Ops as alleged by the complainant and the reasons according above the complaint submitted by the complainant is devoid of the merit needs dismissal and is hereby dismissed with no order to cost. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be indexed and consigned to records.

Pronounced.

 

                March 15, 2019.

 

                                                       

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                  Presiding  Member

 

 

                                                        (Manisha)

                                                          Member