Delhi

North East

CC/101/2023

Sh. Daya Shankar Shukla - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 101/23

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Daya Shankar Shukla S/o Sh. Gangotri Prasad R/o St. No. 14, ShahidBhagat Singh Colony, Karawal Nagar, North East, Delhi-110054		Complainant
		Versus
		ICICI Bank Ltd. Plot NO. 7, Community Center S.D Tower, Sector 8, Rohini, New Delhi-110085		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		19.04.23 22.04.24 12.06.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party alleging deficiency in services.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is thattwo different loan amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- &Rs. 2,94,000/- having loan account no. LUDEL00045083684 & SPDEL00045083912 respectively were sanctioned in name of the complainant under scheme of car loan & Top-up loan. The Complainant stated that agent of Opposite Party promised to provide minimum rate of interest i.e. 7 % as compared to other banks. Thereafter getting approval letterdated 29.12.21 Complainant found that the rate of interest was 13.75 % on both loan accounts and no sanction letter was given to Complainant. The Complainant stated that he had received Rs. 5,36,314/- out of Rs. 5,50,000/- (loan amount sanctioned). Thereafter, Complainant approached the customer relationship manager of Opposite Party to lodgecomplaintregarding non-receivable amount of Rs. 36,746/-. It is stated that the payment of Rs. 23,000/- was transferred by unknown personSangeeta Gupta, IMPS 203215481845, A/C – ICI XXXX0463 on dated 01.02.22. The Complainant had received the following transactions.

1. Cheque no. 460024 & 25 of Rs. 5,808 & 4,98,825/-
2. Cheque no. 460022 of Rs. 8,621/-
3. IMPS of Rs. 23,000/-
4. Amount of Rs. 13,746/- ( Not received till date)

2. The Complainant visited various times the Opposite Party branch for amount of Rs. 13,746/- and loan sanction letter but all in vain. On 16.12.22Complainant found few mismatched entries in loan statement for LUDEL00045083684 in sectionof disbursement from 30.12.21 to 16.12.22.Complainant had also sent emails to customer care of Opposite Party dated 02.09.22 & 09.09.22 but no reply received. The Complainant had also lodged a complaint on RBI CMS dated 25.10.22 having complaint no. N202223022003468 &N202223022003472 but complaint was closed. The Complainant had also sent legal notice dated 28.12.22 to branch manager but it was received back having remarks “addressee left without instructions”. On 28.12.22 Complainant also sent written complaint to Nodal officer of Opposite Party bank but no reply received.  Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party.  The Complainant has prayed for the pending amount of Rs. 13,746/- of the loan disbursement & loan sanction letter by the ICICI bank may be granted with the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment.
3. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 31.07.23. Thereafter Opposite Party moved an application for review/recall of the Ex-parte order and the said application is dismissed vide order dated 01.11.23.

Ex-Parte Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties.We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant.
6. It is the case of the Complainant that he availed two loans from the Opposite Party and he was allegedly charged higher rate of interest while he was promised lower rate of interestand no sanction letter was given to Complainant. It is also the case of the Complainant that he had received Rs. 5,36,314/- out of Rs. 5,50,000/- (loan amount sanctioned) and upon raising the complaint in this regards, only Rs. 23,000/- was transferred by unknown person and amount of Rs. 13,746/- has not been received till date. It is also alleged that the Complainant found few mismatched entries in loan statement for LUDEL00045083684 in section of disbursement from 30.12.21 to 16.12.22 and the matter was not resolved despite several complaints.Hence, Opposite Party is liable for deficiency in services.
7. The allegation of the Complainant against the Opposite Party is that he was promised a loan at lower rate of interest while disbursed loan at higher rate of interest. The allegation cannot be believed to be true as the Complainant has not produced any document in support that lower interest was promised. Further, the Complainant’s grievance is that two different loan amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- &Rs. 2,94,000/- having loan account no. LUDEL00045083684 & SPDEL00045083912 respectively were sanctioned but he had only received Rs. 5,36,314/- out of Rs. 5,50,000/-.  Upon raising the complaint in this regards, only Rs. 23,000/- was transferred by unknown person and amount of Rs. 13,746/- has not been received till date. The Complainant has filed statement of his bank account from 01.04.2021 to 31.03 2022 as well as Loan Account Statement for LUDEL00045083684.
8. The perusal of copy of Complainant’s bank account shows that he has not filed complete bank statement for the period mentioned i.e. from 01.04.2021 to 31.03 2022 as it reflects the entry from 5.1.2022 onwards. Secondly, the copy of Loan Account Statement for LUDEL00045083684 shows loan account details as on 23.03.2023 which mentions that Rs.5,50,000/- was disbursed on 30.12.2021 and installments were pending from 05.12.2023. It further shows the entries from 05.02.2022 onwards and does not show entry for 30.12.2021 to show asto how much exact amount was disbursed on 30.12.2021 under the loan account no.LUDEL00045083684. Therefore, the above contention is rejected as the complainant has not been able to show that only Rs. 5,36,314/- out of Rs. 5,50,000/-was disbursed. On the contrary it is reflected from the documents that the Complainant was defaulting in paying the EMIs. The complainant has also alleged that the Opposite Party has not provided Loan Sanction Letter. The document which the Complainant has filed as loan approval letter mentions clearly that the amount mentioned below has been disbursed, hence, even if it is believed that loan sanction letter was not provided, in our view, it will not be detrimental to the interest of the Complainant when the amount has already been disbursed.
9.  In view of above discussion,we find that the contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint have not been substantiated /corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence and the onus being on the Complainant to prove his case, the Complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
10. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices against the Opposite Party and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. Order announced on12.06.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President