Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/1181

MRINAL KANTI PAUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision:25.10.2016

First Appeal No. 1181/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 19.11.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 590/2007 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum X, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

Mrinal Kanti Paul

S/o Late Sh. M.N.Paul

R/o Pocket No. 52/108 (G.F.)

C.R.Park

New Delhi-110019                                           .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

ICICI Bank Ltd.

Through its Regional Manager

Padma Building (G.F.)

Nehru Place

New Delhi-110019                                            ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

1.         Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum X Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-110016. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint.
2.         Facts in brief of the complaint are that the appellant/complainant admittedly applied for a loan to the tune of Rs. 2 lac to ICICI Bank Ltd. Padma Building (GF) Nehru Place New Delhi (in short the OP). Loan was applied for the purpose of purchase of a plot of land measuring 112 Sq. Meters from Mathura Vrindawan Development Authority. For procuring loan, complainant had offered his vehicle Mahindra Balero for hypothecation. Value of the vehicle was Rs. 6.25 lacs. OP bank after getting necessary approval of the proposal accordingly sanctioned the loan of Rs. 2 lac to the complainant. OP bank also put an endorsement on the Registration Certificate (RC) of the vehicle to the effect that the vehicle stood hypothecated with the OP bank. The loan amount was however not disbursed to the complainant despite thefact that the complainant moved from pillar to post in the OP bank. After the expiry of a period of 11 months, complainant made a request to the OP bank for removal of the endorsement of hypothecation on the RC of his vehicle so as to enable him to get loan from some other bank. OP bank allegedly neither disbursed the loan amount nor cancelled the endorsement of hypothecation. Contention of the complainant was that with the aforesaid loss of time there was an escalation in the price of the plot. Non-payment of the installment of the plot resulted into its cancellation by Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority. The said cancellation was however restored on payment of a penalty of Rs. 27,675/- alongwith restoration charges. Complainant availed of the loan from a private person on an interest @ 10% p.a.
3.         OP bank admitted having processed and approved the aforesaid loan amount in favour of the complainant. Contention of the OP is that it hadsent the registration certificate of the vehicle at the address of the complainant with the endorsement of hypothecation. It was the complainant who did not supply the requisite documents. OP bank wrote several reminders.  After waiting uptil 13.04.2007, the case was closed.
4.         Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the OP bank had not received any charges or consideration for grant of loan.
5.         I have heard the arguments addressed by the counsels for the appellant/complainant Sh. Neeraj Gupta Advocate and counsel for the respondent/OP Sh. Hemant Gupta Advocate, at length.
6.         Perusal of the definition of ‘consumer’ as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 shows that the payment of any consideration at the time of availing of the service is not a mandatory requirement. The said payment can be deferred at that juncture. In other words, a person availing of the services for a consideration which may be made on deferred payment is also a consumer. It is not the case of the OP bank/respondent that the services were being provided by it to the complainant free of charges.  Obviously after disbursal of loan or while receiving back the loan amount, the OP bank was to receive interest on the principal amount. They have definitely taken into account the consideration which was to be received at the time of refund of the loan amount. Ld. District Forum, therefore, fell in error in observing that there was no ‘consideration’ paid by the complainant and the complainant for that reason complainant was not a ‘consumer’.
7.         Before parting it may be mentioned here that the OP bank referred to non-supply of requisite documents by the complainant. Perusal of the written version of the OP bank shows that it has not mentioned as to which specific documents were required to be furnished by the complainant. OP bank also referred to sending several reminders to the complainant calling upon him to furnish documents. No such reminders have been placed on record by the OP bank.  OP bank admitted having processed and approved the loan. It was only after approval that it put an endorsement on the Registration Certificate. There was thus no occasion for the OP bank to call for any further documents.  The complainant asked the OP bank to cancel the endorsement on the registration certificate of the vehicle when it failed to disburse in the loan. The said endorsement was not cancelled on repeated requests of the complainant. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant falls within the ambit of the definition of the ‘consumer’and the OP bank was guilty of ‘deficiency in service’.Appeal is accordingly allowed. Complaint is consequently allowed and the OP bank is directed to pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac (inclusive of litigation charges) for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant. Let the aforesaid compensation be paid to the complainant within a period of 30 days from today failing which the interest @ 24% p.a. shall be leviable on the said amount after the expiry of the period of 30 days.
8.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
9.         FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL