Date of Filing : 21.03. 2005
Date of Order : 11.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.359/2005
MONDAY THIS 11H DAY OF APRIL 2016
Mr. S. Sermakani,
S/o. Late R. Seeni Nadar,
No.4/697, First Street,
Mahalakshmi Nagar,
Redhills,
Chennai 600 052. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1.The General Manager,
ICICI Bank Limited,
ICICI Tower, 5th Floor,
West Wing,
NO.93, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028.
2. S.Yugendran,
Team Leader – Car Overdraft,
Solutions Integrated Marketing
Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Service Provider of ICICI Bank Ltd.,
ICICI Towers, 5th Floor,
West Wing,
No.93, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028. ..Opposite parties.
For the Complainant : M/s. A. Ravichandran
For the Opposite party-1 : M/s.V.V.Giridhar & another
For the opposite party-2 : M/s. M. Remya
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for refusing to provide the vehicle loan and also to cost of the complaint.
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:
The complainant submit that he is running a travel agency called Tony Travel who was contacted by the opposite party-2 to get a over draft facility from the opposite party-1 for which the opposite party-2 had collected a non refundable processing fees of Rs.1,750/-by way of cheque on 8.1.2005 and the same was realized on 31.1.2005. The complainant states that the opposite party-2 had shown the newspaper clipping of Dinamalar dt.1.3.2005 about the offer of getting over draft facilities for the car owners who are member or operators of ICICI bank account holders. The opposite party-2 had promised to get the over draft from the opposite party -1 and informed that the complainant is eligible for Rs.70,000/- only as overdraft and subsequently for the follow up with the opposite party-1 it was said to be a sanctioned loan of Rs.1,30,000/- was offered by the opposite party-2. But it was not accorded by opposite party-1 resulting in the mental tension and unnecessary interruption getting paranoid about privacy and repudiation of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties had made deficiency of service. Because of the non sanctioning of over draft facility / loan to the complainant has caused repeated itching through unsolicited calls made by the mobile phone calls and non compliance of sanctioning of loan created loss of reputation and its business carrier. Accordingly the complainant to send a letter and legal notice calling upon the opposite party to pay Rs.12,18,787/- being the balance amount of claim payable to the complainant and failed and neglected to pay as per demand of complainant. As such the complainant sought for claims for a sum of Rs.12,18,787/- being the balance amount of the claim for loss suffered by the complainant with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and cost of the complaint to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Written version 1st opposite party is as follows:
2. The 1st opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The 1st opposite party submit that when his application had come to the bank along with the necessary documents the 1st opposite party banked the processing fee cheque and forwarded the proposal for credit decision. The credit team had given approval for only a sum of Rs.70,000/-. The same was communicated to the complainant by the Executive but he complainant did not accept for the same, asked to cancel the application and demanded for the refund of the processing fee which was a non-refundable fee. As it was clearly mentioned that the processing fee will not be refunded, as per the norms the 1st opposite party did not return the processing fees paid by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Therefore pleads the compliant is liable to be dismissed.
3. Written version 2nd opposite party is as follows
The 2nd opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite party-2 who are the out sourcing agent of opposite party-1 not disputing the allegation raised by the complainant of having accepted the non refundable processing fee of Rs.1750/- and their duty to approach the interested parties and collect the application with required documents to be forwarded to the opposite party-1 whereby if the complainant is eligible to have the over draft facility, if the opposite party-1 feels happy with the accounts maintained by the complainant and various other grounds judged by the opposite party-1 then only the over draft facility will be provided and it is not mandatory on the part of opposite party to sanction the loan. The opposite party records on scrutiny and eligibility condition it was offered at first Rs.70,000/- and then at the request of the complainant Rs.1,30,000/- was demanded by complainant which was not accepted by the opposite party-1. The averments made by the complainant on the opposite parties are frivolous and seeking compensation for non compliances of the loan which had created mental agony and it is a false and imaginary claim by the complainant. Hence the opposite party-2 requested to dismiss the complaint.
4. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite parties filed and no documents of opposite party was not marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
6. POINTS 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties and no documents was marked on the side of the opposite parties and also considered the both side arguments.
7. On the complainant running a travel agency called Tony Travel who was contacted by the opposite party-2 (Tele caller) to get a over draft facility from the opposite party-1 (ICICI Bank) for which the opposite party-2 had collected a non refundable processing fee of rs.1,750/-by way of cheque on 8.1.2005 and the same was realized on 31.1.2005. The complainant states that the opposite party-2 had shown the newspaper clipping of Dinamalar dt.1.3.2005 about the offer of getting over draft facilities for the car owners who are member or operators of ICICI bank account holders. The contention of the complaint that the opposite party-2 had promised to get the over draft from the opposite party -1 and informed that the complainant is eligible for Rs.70,000/- only as overdraft and subsequently for the follow up with the opposite party-1 it was said to be a sanctioned loan of Rs.1,30,000/- was offered by the opposite party-2. But it was not sanctioned by opposite party-1 resulting in the mental tension and unnecessary interruption, getting paranoid about privacy and repudation of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties had made deficiency of service under 2 (1) (d) (g) (o) of CORPA 1986 and also is fundamental rights specified under article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India was violated by the opposite party.
8. Because of the non sanctioning of over draft facility / loan to the complainant has caused repeated itching through unsolicited calls made by the mobile calls and non compliance of sanctioning of loan created loss of reputation and his business carrier. Where the complainant claims Rs.1,00,000/- being the compensation.
9. The complainant states that he is an income tax assesse for his business transaction and had a good reputation which has lost because of the improper malafide actions lead to latches of deficiency in banking service which was against he principle of natural justice. Hence the complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel on 25.5.2005 and construed it is an unnecessary interruption causing mental agony which leaves to deficiency of service by the opposite parties.
10. The cause of action and jurisdiction of the complaint falls within the limitation and jurisdiction of the Honble forum. The prayer of the complainant is to get back Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of reputation for non sanctioning of the over draft facility through opposite party-2 by collecting a non refundable processing fee and not taking adequate care and opposite party-2 has made an unfair trade practice u/s 2 (1) ( d ) (g) (o) of the CORPA 1986. Hence the complaint.
11. The opposite party-1 submits that various statement pertaining to the complainant by way of credit cards and the trust worthiness of the complainant was viewed, on the basis of account maintained by the borrower with their banker and the averments made by the complainant was not agreed upon and the complainant has not made justifiable allegations on the part of opposite party-1 and pleaded to dismiss the case.
12. The opposite party-2 who are the out sourcing agent of opposite party-1 not disputing the allegation raised by the complainant of having accepted the non refundable processing fee of Rs.1750/- and stated it is their duty to approach the interested parties and collect the application with required documents to be forward to the opposite party- whereby if the complainant is eligible to have the over draft facility, if the opposite party-1 feels happy with the accounts maintained by the complainant and various other grounds judged by the opposite party-1 then only the over draft facility will be accorded and it is not mandatory on the part of opposite party to sanction the loan. The opposite party records on scrutiny and eligibility condition it was offered at first Rs.70,000/- and then at the request of the complainant Rs.1,30,000/- was demanded which was not accepted by the opposite party-1. The averments made by the complainant on the opposite parties are frivolous and seeking compensation for non compliances of the loan which had created mental agony and it is false and imaginary claim by the complainant. Hence request this forum to dismiss the above complaint.
13. On perusal of the affidavit, written version filed by the complainant and the opposite parties 1 & 2 it is not proved that there was a deficiency of service u/s 2 (1 ) (g) and 14 (d) of the COPRA 1986 and other judgment cited below,
I (1995) CPJ 344
NAND RAO SOORVE & ANOTHER
..VS..
STATE BANK OF INDIA
In para 3 of the order clearly states that
This commission cannot sit over a judgment of the decision of the bank, as its decision is based on the material before it.
The contention raised by the complainant the unfair trade practice made by the opposite parties 1 & 2 which had given raised lost to the complainant which was brought under
III 2002 CPJ 1994 (MRTP)
DIRECTOR (RESEARCH)
..Vs..
POWER PACKER SYSTEMS
It is held that
“MRTP act 1969 - Sections 36B(d), 36D - Unfair Trade Practice - Advertisement – Gift scheme - Cost of gift intended to be included in price of motorcycle not shown – Price increase related to scheme not proved – No injury caused to public / consumer – Scheme no longer in operation – Complaint dismissed. “
The opposite parties have given an advertisement for providing over draft facility for the car owners thereby the complainant approached the opposite parties but failed to get the loan / over draft facility from the opposite parties. This forum observes that this advertisement is not an unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. The complainant should have all the eligibilities look by the bankers to accord sanction.
14. Article of limitation act 1963 provides the time limit for instituting a suit for three years. It is suggested, it is the liberty of the complainant to file the suit in the Civil court, the time limit will be waived from the date of filing of the complaint in this forum on 21.3.2005 to the date of order.
15. We have judiciously gone through the facts and figures furnished by both the parties to the dispute and the written arguments heard from the learned counsels, the complainant he himself committed in writing that he is carrying out a commercial activity by running a travels which was not for his livelihood and it is “commercial purpose” and moreover the complainant himself committed that he file Income tax returns every year as a business man, In view of this findings he is not construed as consumer unless u/s 2 (1) (d) he has to establish that the business is self employment and for his livelihood which was not complied by the complainant. We observe that this complaint establishes it is clear activity of the complainant who runs the travels for commercial purpose and we took a stand to dismiss the complaint with no cost.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- - - Copy of RC book of vehicle.
Ex.A2- - - Copy of Complainant’s statement of account
Ex.A3- 8.1.2005 - Copy of Ack.
Ex.A4- 1.3.2005 - Copy of Dinamalar Advertisement.
Ex.A5- 19.2.2005 - Copy of sample trip sheet of Tony travels.
Ex.A6- - - Copy of proof address for Tony travels.
Ex.A7- - - Copy of Visiting Card showing the 2nd opposite party
designation and address.
Ex.A8- 25.2.2005 - Copy of legal notice to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A9- 25.2.2005 - Copy of legal notice to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A10- 28.2.2005 - Copy of Ack. card
Ex.A11- 28.2.2005 - Copy of Ack card.
Ex.A12- 8.1.2005 - Copy of counter foil.
Opposite party’s side documents: .. Nil ..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
