Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/20/648

SANDESH TIWARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Dec 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2020

(Arising out of order dated 14.01.2020 passed in C.C.No.377/2018 by District Commission, Indore-2)

 

SANDESH S/O SHRI R. N. TIWARI

& SMT. PREMA TIWARI W/O SHRI R.N.TIWARI                                             …          APPELLANTS

 

           Versus

                 

ICICI BANK LIMITED.                                                                                          …         RESPONDENT.

 

                                      

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                 

                                      O R D E R

 

28.12.2023

 

            Appellant no.1 is present in person.

            Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                         This appeal by the complainants/appellants is directed against the order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-2 (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.377/2018 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by them.  

2.                Heard appellant no.1, who is present in person and learned counsel for the respondent.

3.                Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for respondents and having gone through the record and the impugned order, we find that the present dispute is related to accounts. The opposite party

-2-

bank sanctioned house loan for a sum of Rs.12,99,155/- on 17.03.2016 to the complainants which was to be repaid in EMI of Rs.12,794/- Thereafter as per floating rate of interest 154 EMIs were fixed @ Rs.11,787/- each. The complainants alleged that they were regularly paid the EMIs but on receipt of statement of money saver account it came to their knowledge that some entries were made twice which was brought to the knowledge of the bank but the bank did not correct the said entries.

4.                On the other hand the defense of the opposite party bank is that they corrected the entries and informed the complainants accordingly. The amount was charged time to time as per floating rate of interest and therefore there has been no deficiency in service on part of the bank.

5.                The District Commission relying on the judgments of the National Commission dismissed the complaint as the dispute involves account requires detailed evidence, which cannot be resolved in summary jurisdiction.

6.                In view of the aforesaid, we find that the present dispute is relating to accounts in which different disputed facts and points are involved which required detailed evidence and cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction. The dispute raised by the complainant is also sub-judice before the Bima Lokpal. Thus we find that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

-3-

7.                For the foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the impugned order is affirmed.

8.                In the result, this appeal fails is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant/appellant is at liberty to get recourse of such other remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law.

 

                        (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr.Srikant Pandey)           

                  Acting President                         Member