Delhi

South II

CC/194/2012

M/S. KRISHI RASAYAN EXPORT PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jan 2019

ORDER

Udyog Sadan Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-16
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/194/2012
( Date of Filing : 23 May 2012 )
 
1. M/S. KRISHI RASAYAN EXPORT PVT. LTD.
1115, HEMKUNT TOWER, 98, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ICICI BANK LTD.
NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  A.S Yadav PRESIDENT
  H.C.SURI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 21 Jan 2019
Final Order / Judgement

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.194/2012

 

M/S KRISHI RASAYAN EXPORT PVT. LTD.,

1115, HEMKUNT TOWER,

98, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 

THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

SH. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

                                             …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                           

 

Vs

 

ICICI BANK  LTD.

NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI

THROUGH ITS MANAGER

                                                          …………..RESPONDENT

 

Date of Order: 21.01.2019

 

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

 

The complainant, M/s Krishi Rasayan Export Pvt. Ltd., 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 company deals in the sale and supply of seeds of various nature and it was having its current account no.629405036618 in the Nehru Place Branch of the OP at the relevant time.  However, the said account is stated to have been closed due to unsatisfactory service of the OP.  It is submitted that the complainant had deposited a DD No.120068 dated 19.7.2006 for Rs.45,000/- drawn upon ICICI Bank Patna for credit of the amount in the aforesaid bank account on 25.7.2006.  The amount of the said DD was not credited to the said account within a reasonable period of time, and even on enquiry by the complainant, no justifiable response was given except the false assurances.   A legal notice was issued to the OP on 22.9.2011 and in response thereto, the OP gave a reply tendering apology for the inconvenience caused and assuring of best services, but remained silent qua the payment of the DD amount and compensation for causing inconvenience and deficiency in service.   The complainant further submits that the amount of Rs.45000/- was deposited by way of DD in the year 2006 but it was not credited in the account of the complainant and even on minimum commercial rate of interest, it would fetch at least Rs.450/- per month as interest and thus as on 30.4.2012, the sum of Rs.45000/- along with interest accrued thereon would work out to be Rs.76,000/-.  The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,76,000/- might be ordered to be given for the deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

 

In its written statement to the complaint, the OP submitted that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts, and based on false statements.   The OP submits that the complainant had its aforesaid current account with the OP which was closed by the complainant, so there is no question of rendering the service to it.   It is further submitted that the legal notice received from the complainant was duly responded to.  The OP further submits that since there is no cause of action against the OP, and since the complaint has been filed deliberately and with mala fide intentions, and to pressurize and extort money, and since complaint is not within limitation, the same might be dismissed with costs.

 

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply/WS, reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the complaint.  Both the parties filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments as well,  

 

We have gone through the case file carefully. 

 

Since the complainant in para no.1 of the complaint, specifically mentioned that the complainant was having its current account no.629405036618 with the OP, and the complainant is also a private limited company, it cannot be said to be a Consumer as per Sec 2(a) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Complaint 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

           

 

 
 
[ A.S Yadav]
PRESIDENT
 
[ H.C.SURI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.