Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

396/2008

R.Senthil kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

I.Manjur alam

01 Nov 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 03.10.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 01.11.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.396/2008

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 01^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

                                 

P. Senthil Kumar,

No.9, Nagarjuna Nagar,

Rangarajapuram First Street,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                   

 

                                                                                              ..Versus..

 

M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

No.46, Gandhi Mandpam Road,

Kotturpuram,

Chennai – 600 085.                                                 ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant        :  M/s. I. Manjur Alam

Counsel for opposite party    :  M/s. S. Namasivayam & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.17,544/- along with interest which has been collected by the opposite party from the complainant through ECS towards EMI of Personal Loan which was never disbursed and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for harassment, physical injury and mental agony with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that the opposite party’s agents approached the complainant several times over telephone and through personal visit and canvassed the complainant to apply for a personal loan during November / December 2006.   Further the complainant submits that the agent of the opposite party got application form and obtained signatures in the personal loan application and ECS Mandate Form and collected several signed cheques of the complainant’s Savings Bank Account No.44745, Canara Bank, T. Nagar Chennai Branch and assured that the personal loan will be disbursed within 7 working days.  Further the complainant submits that the opposite party has not paid any amount towards the alleged personal loan and collected EMI amount through ECS which was not known to the complainant.  When the complainant issued a cheque in the month of April 2007 to his creditors, the cheques were returned as ‘insufficient fund’.  Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party Bank Manager to clarify the matter related to the personal loan.  At that time, the opposite party officials told the complainant that they will enquire and refund the ECS amount.  But instead of refunding back the collected amount they started to send collection agent for recovery of EMI money.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated:12.10.2007 & 29.04.2008.  Thereafter, the opposite party issued notice through Lok Adalat dated:29.10.2007.  The complainant submits that even after several months nothing was done by the opposite party.   The complainant made several phone calls and personal visit to the office of the opposite party.   There was only evasive reply and they said that matter is being looked after by higher authorities and they will refund back the money.  The collection agent started to make personal visit for collection at the residence and at the place of business of the complainant which resulted in loss of reputation in the eyes of neighbours, customers and general public. The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that the complainant signed an agreement for utilizing personal loan of ICICI Bank Ltd. subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement.   The transactions between the complainant and the opposite party is one of contract whereby the complainant has agreed to abide by the conditions that in case of default within the prescribed period he will be charged interest and penal interest, to ensure that the money is promptly paid.   Further the opposite party states that the complainant having availed a sum of Rs.97,000/- towards personal loan and having paid only 4 EMIs amounting to Rs.14,035/-, the complainant is liable to pay as on 29.10.10.2007 the opposite party a sum of Rs.89,396.25.   The complainant has later paid one EMI of Rs.3,509/- on 05.01.2009.   Thereafter, all the ECS Mandate cheques were bounced. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether  the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.17,544/- collected by the opposite party towards EMI for the personal loan?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation  for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that the opposite parties’ agents approached the complainant several times and obtained signatures in the personal loan application and ECS Mandate Form and collected several signed cheques of the complainant’s Savings Bank Account No.44745, Canara Bank, T. Nagar Chennai Branch and assured that the personal loan will be disbursed within 7 working days.  Ex.A1 is the copy of complainant’s Canara Bank Account pass book.  Ex.B2 is the Application Form and Ex.B3 is the ECS Mandate Form. 

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has not paid any amount towards the alleged personal loan and collected EMI amount through ECS which was not known to the complainant.  When the complainant issued a cheque in the month of April 2007 to his creditors, the cheques were returned as ‘insufficient fund’.  Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party Bank Manager to clarify the matter related to the personal loan.  At that time, the opposite party officials told the complainant that they will enquire and refund the ECS amount.  But the opposite party has not done so.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated:12.10.2007 & 29.04.2008 as per Ex.A3 & Ex.A5.  Thereafter, the opposite party issued notice through Lok Adalat as per Ex.A4.   Since the opposite party has not returned the amount, the complainant filed this case claiming compensation.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2, statement of accounts of ICICI Bank shows that on 18.12.2006, a sum of Rs.97,000/- was sanctioned and credited into the account of the complainant.   But the complainant has not produced the Xerox copy of the bank pass book showing the transaction of the year 2006 particularly the transaction dated:18.12.2006 proves the suppression of material facts. 

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant after duly submitting the signed application for personal loan as per Ex.B2 and ECS Mandate Form Ex.B3 sanctioned a sum of Rs.97,000/- towards personal loan and after deducting the service charges a sum of Rs.94,823/-  has been sanctioned and credited into the account of the complainant on 18.12.2006 as per Ex.A2.  The complainant has not produced the bank pass book showing the transaction dated:18.12.2006.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the monthly instalment of Rs.3,509/- for 36 months to be paid by the complainant towards the personal loan.  But the complainant has kept the fund only for 4 EMIs amounting to Rs.14,035/-.  Thereafter, all the ECS Mandate cheques were bounced.  The complainant failed and neglected to pay the ECS amount and filed this case with false allegations.  The complainant has not proved the deficiency in service of the opposite party in any manner.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 01^st day of November 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1		Copy of Canara Bank Statement
Ex.A2	23.08.2007	Copy of statement sent by the opposite party
Ex.A3	12.10.2007	Copy of legal notice of the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party
Ex.A4	29.10.2007	Coy of Lok Adalat Notice
Ex.A5	29.04.2008	Copy of legal notice of the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS: 

Ex.B1	19.01.2006	Copy of Power of Attorney
Ex.B2		Copy of Application Form
Ex.B3		Copy of Electronic Clearing Service Mandate Form

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT