BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Rakesh Kumar, s/o Late Sh. K.K. Sharma, r/o # 2028/2, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1] ICICI Bank Limited, SCO No.181-182, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh

2]  Collection Manager ICICI Bank Limited, SCO No.181-182, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL   MEMBER

Argued by: None for complainant.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

              The complainant took a loan from OP-1 with which he purchased six cars as mentioned in para number 2 of the complaint.  According to him he had been paying regular monthly installments to the OP but on 07.07.2009, he was out of town alongwith his family members and therefore the monthly installment of Rs.16,234/- could not be paid by him due to lack of funds in his bank account.  The OPs sent their employee to the complainant and asked him to deposit the amount of monthly installment but he being out of station requested them that he would deposit the monthly installment alongwith bouncing charges within a week.  According to the complainant when on 12.07.2009, he went to the office of the OP he found that they had withdrawn the entire amount (of Rs.4710/-) lying in his current account, he was of the view that the OPs cannot withdraw the amount from his account and he therefore stopped paying further installments to the OPs.  He filed the present complaint for the refund of the amount of Rs.4710/- withdrawn by the OPs from his current account alongwith Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice, Rs.20,000/- for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             The complainant was given an opportunity to produce documents/evidence in support of his contention.

3.             It is pertinent to mention that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only stipulation is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the recent decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic.  The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

4.             The complainant stopped attending the hearing.  He did not come present on 15.03.2010, 19.03.2010 and 23.03.2010. We have perused the record. 

5.             It is admitted by the complainant that he is a defaulter and has not paid a single installment towards the refund of the loan since 07.07.2009. His contention that he was out of town due to which he could not pay the amount cannot be accepted as correct because his presence in the town was not at all needed for payment of any installment.  What he was to do was to deposit sufficient amount in his account from which the payment of installment is deducted by the OP through ECS.  He did not take care of the requirement to comply with the terms of the agreement to pay the installment by due date.  Not only that, the cheques issued by him bounced but the OPs sent their own man to the complainant for payment of installment but even inspite of that he did not bother to pay the amount.  However when on 12.07.2009 he visited the office of the OP even at that time he did not make arrangement to deposit sufficient amount in his bank account from which the payment of installment could be made.  He is resenting the withdrawal of Rs.4710/- only  which was lying in his current account and which has been withdrawn by the OPs but that was not enough to satisfy the payment due from him. The complainant is therefore finding false excuses to get huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation simply because a sum of Rs.4710/- was withdrawn by the OPs as against Rs.16,234/- which was due from him.

6.             The concluding line of para number 8 of the complaint show that there was some loan agreement between the parties under which it was discussed as to whether the OPs were competent to withdraw any amount from the account of the complainant to satisfy the installment which was not paid by him.  His contention is that they had assured that they would not withdraw any of the amounts from his account. This fact could be ascertained only from the loan agreement which admittedly was executed between the parties.  The complainant however has not produced the loan agreement on file despite three opportunities granted to him for this purpose which shows that the complainant is withholding the said agreement so that the actual terms of the same do not come on record.  We have to take an adverse inference against the complainant that if the loan agreement was produced it would have proved that the OPs have a right to withdraw the amount lying in his current account to satisfy the due installment.

7.             Otherwise also when the amount of installment was due from the complainant, the OPs were justified in having a lien over the amount lying in his bank account and were competent to withdraw the amount.  There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part.

8.             It is mentioned by the complainant in para number 10 of the complaint that when he came to know about the withdrawal of Rs.4710/- from his bank account he immediately stopped paying the installment which shows the conscious decision of the complainant not to pay any installment. Rather he was in arrears earlier also which shows his intention of not to pay regular installments by due dates.  We however cannot side with the complainant and protect his wrong actions in contravening the provisions of the agreement denying his liability to pay installments.  We cannot penalize the OP bank for exercising their right of lien over the amount lying in the bank account of the complainant which they were legally competent to withdraw.

9.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint.  The complainant has become greedy and instead of paying the installments by due dates he is now claiming an exorbitant amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation on account of  unfair trade practice, Rs.20,000/- for mental tension, agony and harassment though there is nothing in the case of the complainant. The complaint is accordingly dismissed in limine.   

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.