CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.331/2009
MR. AMIT SURESH SETHI
S/O LATE SH. SURESH CHAND SETHI
R/O B-359, NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110065
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs
ICICI BANK LTD.
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER
GREATER KAILASH-II,
NEW DELHI-110048
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 21.01.2019
O R D E R
H. C Suri – Member
The complainant, Mr. Amit Suresh Sethi, has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against ICICI Bank Ltd., the OP herein, submitting that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.2,15,00,000/- (Rupees Two crores fifteen lakhs) in Fixed Deposit vide FDR No.3864205 dated 18.4.2007 and its maturity date was 20.4.2008 and maturity value was Rs.2,40,09,573/-. It is submitted that when the complainant required some funds, the OP offered to provide Overdraft facility/loan facility against the aforesaid FDR on charging 2% over and above the interest payable on the FD. Accordingly, the complainant availed the overdraft facility against the FDR after signing the documents as directed by the respondent. It is further submitted that the said FDR got matured on 20.4.2008, and the complainant through his letter dated 24.4.2008 requested the OP to renew the FDR for 15 days. It is submitted that as per the Banking rules and regulations pertaining to such a transaction, the OP were under legal as well as contractual obligation to either renew the said FDR or in the alternative to adjust the outstanding overdraft against the value of the FDR and return the balance amount to the complainant on the date of maturity of FDR, but instead the OP kept the FDR in abeyance and started charging higher rate of interest on the overdraft without knowledge and consent of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had dealt with the OP in good faith that the OP would act as per the parameters of the established banking norms. But the complainant got the shock when he realized that neither the OP renewed the said FDR nor adjusted the outstanding overdraft amount against the value of the FDR on the date of maturity. It is submitted that the complainant vide his letter dated 7.7.2008 again requested the OP to adjust the outstanding overdraft against the value of the FDR with upto date interest believing that the interest rate on overdraft would be charged 2% higher over and above the interest paid on the FDR. However, the OP charged the higher rate of interest @ 15.10% on the overdraft and did not pay applicable interest on the FDR from the date of maturity i.e. 20.4.2008, thereby causing great loss to the complainant. It is further submitted that the OP offered a return a sum of Rs.27,20,025/- to the complainant after adjusting the outstanding loan with higher rate of interest against the banking regulations and norms. The complainant immediately made protests against the OP’s wrongful acts and sent emails for the refund of the due amount without deducting any amount towards the higher rate of interest but to no effect. A legal notice dated 17.10.2008 was served on the OP but the OP instead of complying with the said notice preferred to send an undated reply, and thus the OP has indulged itself in most unfair trade practices and there are clear deficiencies in the services provided by the OP to the complainant.
In reply to the complaint, the OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the bank adjusted the maturity amount of FD with the outstanding amount in the OD account and offered to return Rs.27,20,025/- to the complainant. It is submitted by the OP that the interest on the OD account was 2% over and above the rate of interest of FDR and that the rate of interest on the FD was 11.10%. Therefore, the rate of interest charged on the OD was fixed at 13.10%. It is further submitted that to renew the FD a/c, the complainant was informed to clear the OD account but the complainant did not have sufficient amount to clear his overdraft within 30 days grace period. Therefore, the FD account could not be renewed and the same was informed to the complainant. It is submitted that the respondent received a letter from the complainant on 9.7.2008 for clearing the outstanding balance in the OD a/c against the FD account, pursuant to which the OP processed the closure of OD after adjusting the funds from the FD a/c and had issued the pay order for the remaining amount after levying prevailing penalty as applicable.
The OP denied that the OP kept the FDR in abeyance and started charging higher rate of interest on the overdraft without knowledge and consent of the complainant. The OP further denied that the OP had delinked the interest rate chargeable on the OD from the one payable on the FDR, which as per the loan contract was 2% over and above the interest paid by the bank on his FDR. The OP further denied that a higher rate of interest @15.10% p.a. was charged or the interest due on the FDR was not paid.
In its rejoinder, the complainant reiterated and reaffirmed all the allegations while denying the version of the OP. It is denied by the complainant that at no stage, the complainant had been informed to clear his OD account as a condition precedent for renewal of his FDR, nor the complainant was ever informed at the due time of renewal of his FDR that his FDR could not be renewed. Further the complainant had informed the OP on 20.4.2008 to renew the FDR and the OP was under an obligation to do so. The OP, however, deliberately did not renew the same with mala fide motives and misappropriate his funds.
The parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits and written arguments as well.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
OP has placed on record a letter dated 20.05.2008 sent to the complainant informing him either to close the FD or do the renewal as soon as possible and settle down the OD amount vide account No.031105002450 immediately. It is stated by OP that the complainant in reply to the said letter dated 20.05.2008, requested OP vide letter dated 07.07.2008 to pay the proceeds of his FDR, adjust the overdraft account and pay balance the balance to him through banker’s cheque in his favour. OP on the instruction of the complainant through letter dated 07.07.2008, settled the overdraft account with FDR account and after settling the account, the remaining amount which had to be paid to the complainant was left with the OP bank as Rs.27,20,025/-. OP bank offered an account payee cheque vide cheque no.114128 dated 09.07.2008 for an amount of Rs.27,20,025/-, however, the complainant refused to accept the said cheque. It is stated that reason for refusal to take the said cheque was that the complainant was stating that OP bank has charged excess interest rate on the Overdraft account. It is denied that OP bank, against the banking regulations charged higher rate of interest @ 15.10 per annum on the OD. It is submitted that OP bank had provided the OD facility to the complainant at 13.10% and the calculation of the complainant’s FDR was at 11.10%. So in fact the complainant has failed to prove that OP bank has ever charged interest @ 15.10% p.a. The complainant wrote a letter dated 29.08.2008 to OP in this regard and that was duly replied by OP vide letter dated 05.09.2008 which clinches the entire issue which is reproduced a sunder:-
“We write with reference to your letter dated August 29, 2008 regarding renewal of FD No.0311114005396 with Over Draft facility.
We wish to inform you that your FDR Number 031114005396 for Rs.2.15 crore was matured on 20.4.2008 & you were informed to clear your OD No.031105002450 well on time alongwith two more cases.
You failed to clear the Overdraft dues within 30 days grace period of FD. Thereafter FD was in overdue status beyond 30 days grace period. Any FD with OD facility cannot be renewed unless OD amount is fully recovered within 30 days grace period of FD. Thus FD cannot be renewed & the same was informed to you through our HH SM. He was in constant touch with your accountant.
Branch had received your letter on 9th July 08 for clearing the OD against the FD amount. The branch had processed the closure of OD after adjusting the funds from FD account and had issued the pay order for the remaining amount after levying prevailing penalty as applicable (Terms and Conditions duly signed by you) due to delayed closure.
Branch had timely informed you for closure of OD on the FD Number 031114005396. as OD was not closed within 30 days grace period of FD maturity so FD could not be renewed.”
It is significant to note that the complaint was filed before Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission after hearing the matter was pleased to pass an order dated 18.02.2009 thereby directing OP to issue fresh draft for a sum of Rs. 27,20,025/- giving opportunity to the complainant to file a complaint before the appropriate forum for the balance amount. OP revalidated the banker’s cheque No.114128 and paid amount of Rs.27,20,025/- which was accepted by the complainant in terms of order dated 18.02.2009.
As discussed above, no cause of deficiency in service is made on the part of OP. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
