Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/385/2005

Revathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

A.Vivekanandhan

02 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   22.12.2004

                                                                        Date of Order :   02.02.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

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

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 385/2005

THURSDAY THIS  2^nd  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

Mrs. Revathi,

W/o. Santhanam,

M-26/1, 25^th Cross Street,

Besant Nagar,

Chennai 609 090.                                .. Complainant.

 

                                   ..Vs..

1.  The Manager,

M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., (Loan Division),

No.1, Cenatoph Road,

Chennai 600 019.

 

2. The Manager,

M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

No.110, Nungambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 034.

 

3. M/s. Systems Specialists,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

No.38/1, Viswanathapuram Main Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai 600 024.                                              .. opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant                :  M/s. A. Vivekanandhan

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2  :  M/s.V.V.Giridhar & S.Ansari

Counsel for the opposite party-3          :   Exparte.

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties   under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay initial amount of Rs.9102/-  and the amount of Rs.4444/- collected through post dated cheques and to pay cost of the complaint.   

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

         The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party to purchase a personal computer on installment basis and the 3^rd opposite party assured the complainant that they will arrange for loan to purchase the personal computer through the 1^st opposite party and accordingly the 3^rd opposite party collected an initial amount of Rs.9102/- on 22.7.2003 and collected is post dated cheques each for a sum of Rs.2222/- drawn on ICICI bank Limited, Nungambakkam Branch, the 2^nd opposite party herein.  The 3^rd opposite party themselves collected the initial amount and as well as 18 post dated cheues, 4 cheques drawn on ICICI bank and 14 cheques drawn on TNSC Bank and assured the complainant that they will process the loan.  

2.     The 3^rd opposite party did not deliver the required computers, inspite of complainant’s several demands and personal visits.  Hence the complainant herein with no other option, instructed the 2^nd opposite party to stop payment for cheques bearing No.091037 dated 7.9.2003 for a sum of Rs.2222/- NO.019038 dated 7.10.2003 for a sum of Rs.2222/- for a sum of Rs.2222/-, No.019039 dated 7.11.2003 for a sum of Rs.2222/- No.019040 dated 7.12.2003 for a sum of Rs.2222/- all are drawn on ICICI bank Ltd., Nungambakkam Branch, the 2^nd opposite party vide letter dated 6.9.2003.   Thereafter, again she sent a letter on 9.9.2003 demanding the 3^rd opposite party to deliver the said computers, but the 3^rd opposite party has not chosen to deliver the said computers deliberately.   

3.   While so on 9.3.2004 when she went to ATM counter / center (ICICI Bank) to withdraw cash as she very much needed money for her mother’s death ceremony, which was held on 9.3.3004 and for doctor’s consultation.  The complainant states that to her utter shock and surprise, she found that the first two cheques bearing No.091037 dated 7.9.2003 and No.091038 dated 7.10.2003 has been cleared by the 3^rd opposite party inspite of the complainant’s stop payment instructions.    The 2^nd opposite party cleared the above said post dated cheques inspite of stop payment instruction, she was unable to attend doctor’s consultation.    Due to the above act of the 2^nd opposite party the cheques which was issued by the complainant to M/s. Citi Financial Corporation was returned dishonoured. 

4.     It is pertinent to submit that the cheque NO.019037 dated 7.9.2003 became invalidated on 7.3.2004, but the 2^nd opposite party colluded with the 1^st opposite party has cleared the invalidated cheque wantonly and deliberately on 8.3.2004.   Hence she sent a letter dated 23.3.2004 to the 1^st opposite party demanding to reverse the entry of Rs.4444/- in her credit account and also wrote a letter dated 30.3.2004 to the opposite parties 2 & 3, but till date both the opposite parties are not responded to the complainant’s request, but made the complainant wander here and there.  

5.     Therefore she sent a legal notice dated 30.4.2004 through her counsel and the opposite parties 1 & 2 received the said notice and the 3^rd opposite party returned the said notice and the  opposite parties 1 & 2 having received the said notice but failed to comply with the demand neither of the complainant nor even given any reply.   The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and negligence attitude of the 1^st opposite party and thereby the complainant was put into mental agony.  Hence the complaint.

6. Written Version of  opposite parties  1 & 2 are  in brief as follows:

      The opposite parties deny each and every averment made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   It is true that the complainant had approached them for a computer loan and produced the invoice from the 3^rd opposite party with regard to the cost of the computer.   Accordingly opposite parties 1 & 2 has sanctioned the computer loan and paid a  sum of Rs.47400/- to the 3^rd opposite party towards the cost of the computer.   Accordingly, the 3^rd opposite party had also collected 18 post dated cheques in favour of opposite parties 1 & 2 from the complainant.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 respectfully stated that as the complainant was maintaining the SB account with opposite parties 1 & 2 she had opted for auto debit of the loan installment amount from her account. 

7.       The opposite parties 1 & 2 have no knowledge about the non delivery of the computer by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant and they are no way connected with the third opposite party.   Further opposite parties 1 & 2 had disbursed the loan amount as requested by the complainant.   Therefore the opposite parties 1 & 2 are not traversing into the averments with regard to the non delivery of computer.   That,  right from the beginning the complainant was irregular in making the repayment of the loan borrowed from the complainant.   Despite of several reminders,  the complainant failed to make the payment towards the computer loan and as on date the complainant has made only a sum of Rs.6666/- towards loan amount.

8.    On receipt of the instruction given by the complainant to stop the payment of the cheques till date, the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not process the said cheques and in the system of the opposite parties 1 & 2 it was marked as payment stopped.  Therefore, the averment that the opposite parties 1 & 2 had cleared the cheques stopped by the complainant is denied as false and puts the complainant into strict proof of the same.   As stated above the complainant had instructed them to debit the loan installment automatically from the account maintained by her with the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore, opposite parties 1 & 2 had debited the installment amount of Rs.2222/- from the account of the complainant  and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 as they did not clear the cheques issued by the complainant.

9.             The complainant is still liable to pay a sum of Rs.54814/- towards the loan amount.   Apart from the above payment the complainant is also liable to pay towards the credit card dues.   Without making the amount due to the opposite parties 1 & 2 the complainant had approached this Forum with an intention to defraud the opposite parties 1 & 2.   As no point of time, the opposite parties 1 & 2 had honoured the cheques stopped by the complainant.    Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party had colluded with the 3^rd opposite party is false and there is no basis for the said averment.  

10.  In fact, they have debited the amount due to them towards the loan amount.  Therefore the question of reversing the said amount to the credit of the complainant did not arise and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 as they have taken their legal ways in collecting their dues.   As the complainant had approached this forum with unclean hands and had suppressed material fact and the above complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

11.    Inspite of service of notice, the opposite party-3 is called absent  and set exparte.

 

12.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A21 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties not filed and no document  was marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

13.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

14.  Point No.1

            On  careful perusal of the evidence of the complainant it is seen that on the assurance given by the opposite party-3 to arrange for loan to purchase the personal computer through the 1^st opposite party  and accordingly the 3^rd opposite party collected an initial amount of Rs.9,102/- on 22.7.2003 and also collected 18 post dated cheques each for a sum of Rs.2222/- drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Nungambakkam Branch.   It is further stated that the 3^rd opposite party  themselves collected the initial amount and as well as 18 post dated cheques, 4 cheques drawn on ICICI bank 14 cheques drawn on TNSC Bank and subsequently it was informed by the opposite party-3, the loan was sanctioned and the computer delivered within a week.  But actually, the 3^rd opposite party did not deliver the required computers, inspite of repeated reminders and personal visits.  Therefore, the complainant without alternative instructed the 2^nd opposite party, to stop the payments for cheques bearing No.091037 dated 7.9.2003, No.091038 dated 7.10.2003, No.091039 dated 7.11.2003, No.091040 dated 7.12.2003 respectively through Ex.A1.  The acknowledgement card for the receipt of the letter Ex.A1 is marked as Ex.A13 & Ex.A14.   Thereafter the complainant sent letter Ex.A2 to the opposite party-3 and even then the 3^rd opposite party has not chosen to deliver the computer deliberately.

15.    It is further seen from the evidence that on 9.3.2004 when the complainant went to ATM counter to withdraw cash, she found that first two cheques bearing No.091037 dated 7.9.2003 and No.091038 dated 7.10.2003 respectively have been cleared by the opposite party, inspite of the specific instruction given.   The bank statement of accounts is marked as Ex.A3,   and the bank account statement dated 22.3.2004 is marked as Ex.A4.   Immediately the complainant has issued a letter Ex.A5 to the 2^nd opposite party  and Ex.A6 to opposite party-1 and Ex.A7 to opposite party-3.  The acknowledgment cards for the letters Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 is marked as Ex.A15, Ex.A16 & Ex.A19 respectively.  Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice Ex.A8 to all the opposite parties.   The acknowledgment cards for the receipt of the said notice which is marked as Ex.A10 and the returned cover from the opposite party-3 is marked as Ex.A11.  Ex.A20 is the copy of loan repayment receipt and Ex.A21 is the copy of postal receipts.

13.    On the other hand, on going through the evidence of the opposite parties 1 & 2, it is admitted that there was sanctioned the computer loan and paid a sum of Rs.47,400/- to the 3^rd opposite party towards the cost of the computer and also in turn, the 3^rd opposite party has also collected 18 post dated cheques in favour of  opposite parties 1 & 2 by the complainant and the complainant had opted for auto debit of the loan installment amount from her account.   In fact, they have no knowledge about the non delivery of the computer by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant and they are no way connected with the third opposite party.   It is further stated  that despite of several reminders the complainant failed to make the payment towards the computer loan and as on date the complainant has made only a sum of Rs.6666/- towards loan amount and after receipt of instruction given by the complainant to stop the payment of cheques, till date the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not process the said cheques.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and question of reversing of the said amount to the credit of the complainant did not arise. 

14.     At the outset, it is crystal clear that it is admitted case that the loan was sanctioned by the opposite parties 1 & 2 and paid a sum of Rs.47400/- to the 3^rd opposite party towards the cost of the computer and also admitted case that the 3^rd opposite party had collected 18 post dated cheques  from the complainant towards the loan amount.  In such circumstances, there is no document produced by the opposite parties 1 & 2 for payment of Rs.47,400/- to the 3^rd opposite party  towards the cost of the computer.   In such circumstances, it is pertinent to note that the required computer has not been delivered by the opposite party-3 inspite of several reminders sent to the  opposite party-3  and personal visits of the complainant.    Such being so the non delivery of the computer of the 3^rd opposite party is not brought to knowledge of the opposite party-1 as stated by the opposite party-1 cannot be sustainable, since if it is so, that after sanctioned of loan by the opposite parties 1 & 2 to the complainant for the purchase of the personal computer and paid the said amount to the opposite party-3, the duty cast upon the opposite parties 1 & 2 to see that the product has been actually delivered or not and for which they have  to collect for relevant documents from the opposite party-3 and kept in their custody.   Therefore, it is needless to say that the opposite parties 1 & 2  have no knowledge about the non delivery of the computer by the 3^rd opposite party.  Moreover, in respect of the non delivery of the computer by the opposite party-3, the complainant sent several letters and legal notices to the opposite parties and the same were received and acknowledged by the opposite parties, they have neither come forward to rectify the defects nor reply to the same.  Not only that the complainant has addressed letter Ex.A1 to the 2^nd opposite party for stop payment of four cheques issued by the complainant and in spite of that the 2^nd opposite party has cleared two cheques for the amount of Rs.4444/- in total.  In this regard the complainant had produced Ex.A1 to Ex.A21  in order to establish the allegations made  in the complaint.   Whereas, except the written version, no relevant documents produced on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2, in order to establish the receipt of the payment of Rs.47,400/-  by the opposite party-3 and other averments narrated in the written version.   In such circumstances, the opposite party-3 being the competent person to say about the receipt of the said amount conveniently remained exparte which clearly shows the real intention of  3^rd opposite party.

15.       In the light  of above facts and circumstances and evidence put forth on either side, there is every possible to believe the facts as alleged by the complainant that there is some collusion between the opposite parties for now delivery of the said product and collected the initial amount and the subsequent two installments of Rs.4444/- clearly amounts for deficiency of service which certainly caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and the same has been proved on the side of the complainant.   This point-1 is answered accordingly.

16.    POINT No.2

As per the decision arrived in point No.1, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the initial amount of Rs.9102/- and the amount of Rs.4444/- collected through post dated cheques in total of Rs.13,546/- with reasonable compensation for causing mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with cost. Thus the point No.2 is also answered accordingly.

       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   Accordingly the opposite parties  1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to repay the initial amount of Rs.9102/- (Rupees Nine thousand one hundred and two only) and the amount of Rs.4,444/- (Rupees Four thousand four hundred and forty four only ) collected through post-dated cheques  in total of Rs.13,546/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand five hundred and forty six only) and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service on the part of them  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. 

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.        

         Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  2^nd   day  of  February 2017.  

 

MBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 6.9.2003    - Copy of letter issued by the complainant to the opposite

                              Party.

Ex.A2- 9.9.2003    - Copy of letter issued by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite

                              Party.

Ex.A3- 15.3.2004  - Copy of Statement of accounts of the complainant.

Ex.A4- 22.3.2004  - Copy of Statement of accounts of the complainant.

Ex.A5- 23.3.2004  - Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite

                              Party.

Ex.A6- 30.3.2004  - Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite

                              Party.

Ex.A7- 30.3.2004  - Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite

                               Party.

Ex.A8- 30.4.2004  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A9- 30.4.2004  - Copy of receipt for RPAD.

Ex.A10- 5.5.2004  - Copy of Acknowledgment card.

Ex.A11- 11.5.2004         - Copy of returned cover.

Ex.A12-  -            - Copy of letter dt. 6.9.2003 with receipt endorsement.

Ex.A13-       -       - Copy of ack. card dated 10.9.2003 for the letter dated

                               9.9.2003 from M/s. System Specialists.

Ex.A14-       -       - Copy of Ack. card dated 10.9.2003 for the letter dated

                              9.9.2003 from ICICI bank, Loan division.

Ex.A15-       -       - Copy of Ack. card dated 25.3.2004 for the letter dated

                               23.3.2004 from ICICI bank, Nungambakkam Branch.

Ex.A16-       -       - Copy of Ack. Card dated 31.3.2004 for the letter

                               dt.30.3.2004 from ICICI Bank, Loan Division.

Ex.A17-       -       - Copy of Ack. card dated 31.3.2004 for the letter

                               Dt. 30.3.2004 from ICICI bank, Nungambakkam Branch.

 

Ex.A18-       -       - Copy of Ack. Card dt. 31.3.2004 for the letter dt. 30.3.2004

                              From ICICI bank, Nungambakkam Branch.

 

Ex.A19-       -       - Copy of Ack. Card dt. 31.3.2004 for the letter dated

                               30.3.2004 from ICICI bank, Loan division,

 

Ex.A20 -      -       - Copy of loan repayment receipt.

 

Ex.A21-       -       - Copy of Postal receipt.

 

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -      .. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.