In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 81/2011 1) Jayanta Banerjee, 26A, Peary Mohan Roy Road, Kolkata-27. ---------- Complainant ---Versus--- 1) ICICI Bank Ltd. 127A, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta-26, P.S. Ballygunge and at RAPG, 1A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-20. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President. Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member Order No. 20 Dated 31/01/2013. In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that some agent of o.p. sometimes in the 1st part of 2006 of the o.p. approached the complainant and offered loan from the bank. The complainant agreed to accept loan from the o.p. O.p. accordingly, provided personal loan to the complainant in 2006 amounting Rs.2,47,307/-. The bank started collecting EMI from the personal account of the complainant in excess than what was agreed between the complainant and the o.p. Complainant requested the o.p. to provide the copy of the agreement to ascertain what was actually agreed in respect of payment of EMI. The o.p. provided the Xerox copy of the agreement from which it is revealed that the signature of the complainant on the said agreement has been forged by o.p. Complainant brought the matter to the notice to the bank authority for proper investigation of the complainant. O.p. finally informed that their men forged the signature of the complainant on the alleged agreement. The bank sent some unknown persons for visiting the locale of the complainants and caused nuisance threat and the complainant brought the matter to the notice to the local P.S. who caught red handed the persons of o.p. who committed nuisance at the premises of complainant and in itiatd a FIR vide Chetla P.S. Case No.75 dt.13.9.07. The police also submitted charge sheet against those accused persons after completing the investigation. On 28.3.09 ICICI Bank informed the complainant that one of their executive had replicated the signature of the complainant and loan agreement document. On 24.4.09 o.p. sent an e-mail informing the closure of loan of the complainant. on 15.2.10 the bank issued a legal notice to the complainant asking to make payment of Rs.4,04,094/- from the complainant. The complainant replied the said notice on 18.2.10 bvut o.p. did not receive the said reply and the registered envelop was returned as refused. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint. Sole O.p. had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that complainant has got no cause of action to file the instant case and complainant deserves no relief and the case should be dismissed. Decision with reasons: We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that the personnel of o.p. bank offered the complainant for loan and complainant agreed to accept the loan from o.p. and complainant was provided personal loan in 2006 for Rs.2,47,307/- and o.p. started collecting EMI from the personal account of the complainant in excess. Complainant brought the matter to the notice of o.p. and requested to provide for a copy of agreement to ascertain what was actually agreed in respect of the payment of EMI and accordingly, o.p. provided Xerox copy of the agreement and therefrom complainant found his signature was forged by o.p. Complainant further brought the matter to the notice of o.p. for proper investigation of the complainant and o.p. bank official informed the complainant that their men forged the signature of the complainant on the alleged agreement. Further case of the complainant as we find that o.p. bank sent some unknown personnel to the locale of the complainant who caused nuisance and threat and matter was brought to the Chetla P.S. and complainant lodged FIR and Chetla P.S. started case no.75 dt.13.9.07 and the investigation ended in charge sheet. It further transpires from the record that on 28.3.09 o.p. informed the complainant that one of their executive viz. Koushik Chakraborty replicated the signature of the complainant and loan agreement document and on 24.7.09 o.p. sent e-mail informing the closure of loan account of the complainant and further on 15.2.10 bank issued a legal notice to the complain ant asking to make payment of Rs.,4,04,094/- and complainant replied the said notice on 18.2.10, but o.p. did not pay heed to that. From the e-mail dt.28.3.10 we find that one Koushik Chakraborty, executive of o.p. forged the signature of the complainant as is evident from the e-mail dt.28.3.10 and 2.4.09 and o.p. closed the loan account vide e-mail dt.24.4.09. In view of the above position and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.p. did the mischief through the official of o.p. bank and this action amounts gross deficiency on the part of o.p. being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief. Hence, ordered, That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of the COPRA, 1986. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost. | 
