IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 279/09 DATED 01.10.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Shivakumar.M.Hubbali, <br /> C/o Meenakashi Murari, No.806, 1st Floor, 1st Main, Contour Road, Gokulam 3rd Stage, <br /> Mysore-570002.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. B.S.Srikanth, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Srinivasan.N., ICICI Bank Limited, RAPG, D Shetty Mansion, D.No.34/2, 3,4,7, 1st Floor, Ramavilas Road, Mysore-570024.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 04.08.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 21.08.2009<br /> Date of order : 01.10.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 11 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant purchased cell phone, using his credit card of the opposite party bank. Complainant had called upon the opposite party’s Customer Care and requested to convert the bill amount of Rs.13,000/- into 12 EMI, but it was not done. Thereafter, the opposite party went adding interest and the amount reached Rs.22,000/-. The complainant agreed for final settlement and accordingly, complainant was to pay Rs.7,000/-, Rs.7,000/- and Rs.8,000/- on 20.09.2008, 20.010.2008 and 20.11.2008 respectively. A person from the opposite party collected post-dated cheques. Complainant had asked him, whether last installment can be delayed and which, he had okayed it. Hence, there was 12 days delay in payment of last installment. Without knowledge and notice to the complainant, the opposite party has blocked the saving bank account of the complainant. Hence, for the mistake of the opposite party, reputation of the complainant has been spoiled, complainant had financial commitments, he was to travel to the opposite party leaving the work, caused mental harassment, complainant had no money even for meals, he did not pay telephone bills, house rent and hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party in the version, has denies most of the allegations in the complaint, and it is contended that the complainant being a borrower not a consumer and hence, by filing the complaint, he is mis-using and abusing process of the Forum. Further, it is contend that, interest has been levied as per the contract. As regard, blocking the account, it is stated, opposite party has enforced the lien, which is permissible. Other material allegations are specifically denied. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, for the opposite party, it’s power of attorney holder has filed affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the material on record.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the compensation claimed?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Analyzing the grievances alleged by the complainant in the complaint, first one is, the opposite party did not convert the bill amount into 12 EMI, second one is, the opposite party added the interest, third one is, because of the consent of an official of the opposite party, there was delay in payment of the last cheque amount and lastly, without notice and knowledge, the opposite party blocked the saving bank account.<br /> <br /> 8. From the facts alleged in the complaint and stated in the affidavit, prima-facie it appears that the complainant first purchased mobile handset from the mobile store and then, called upon the opposite party to convert the bill into EMI. It is not specifically alleged and proved by the complainant that, at the first instance, he had approached the opposite party bank, which had agreed or consented to convert the bill amount into 12 EIMI. On the other hand, at the cost of repetition, as stated in the complaint, complainant requested the customer care of the opposite party to convert the bill amount into EMI. Hence, it is clear that prior to purchase of the handset, the opposite party had not consented or agreed to convert the bill into EMI. However, in the affidavit the complainant has stated that, if the opposite party was not willing to convert the bill amount into EMI, he could not have purchased the handset. But, firstly, that fact is not stated in the complaint and moreover, except the interested statement of the complainant, there is no material on record, particularly document to show that opposite party had agreed or consented to convert the bill amount into EMI.<br /> <br /> 9. Then, as regards, adding the interest, it is claimed by the complainant that he had purchased the handset for Rs.13,000/-, which reached Rs.22,000/-. In the present complaint, the complainant has not challenged the interest charged by the opposite party. On the other hand, it is mentioned in the complaint itself that, the complainant as per the final settlement, agreed to pay the said amount in 3 installments. Hence, when the complainant himself has agreed to pay the said amount, he cannot now blame the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 10. As regards, the next grievance that the person from the opposite party had collected post-dated cheques and had okayed for delayed payment of the amount in respect of last installment, there is no evidence to prove that fact. On the contrary, there is quite inconsistent and contradictory contention is put forth by the complainant in the complaint and stated in the affidavit. It is specifically alleged in the complaint, that he agreed to pay the said amount in 3 installments by 20th of September, October, and November 2008. Contrary to it, in the affidavit, it is stated by the complainant that, he had given post-dated cheques and on the respective dates of the cheques itself, the opposite party has collected the amount. Firstly, copy of the cheques or other documents are not placed on record by the complainant to prove that the cheques were of the dates mentioned in the affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit, that he had given the cheques dated 15.10.2008, 02.11.2008, 2.12.2008. But, as noted here before, it is the case of the complainant himself that a person from the opposite party had okayed that the complainant can delay in making payment of the last installment. Hence, in respect of this grievance also, we found no substance. <br /> <br /> 11. Lastly, the complainant alleges that without his knowledge and prior notice, the opposite party has blocked his saving bank account. In this regard, for the opposite party a ruling reported in I (2009) CPJ 227 is relied upon. The Hon’ble State Commission in the said ruling has held that the bank can invoke its power of general lien in respect of other loan. Here, it is relevant to note that, as contended by the opposite party, because, the complainant did not pay the amount in time, certain amount has been charged as per the statement produced and the complainant has not cleared that amount and as such, the amount of the complainant has been blocked. Even according to the complainant, admittedly, there is delay on his part in making payment of some account of the opposite party and hence, the contention of the opposite party that it has charged the amount as stated in the statement of account, cannot be ignored and moreover, the complainant has not challenged that fact. Hence, has submitted for the opposite party, blocking of the saving bank account of the complainant for the amount due, is permissible in law.<br /> <br /> 12. The complainant has sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, as noted above, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the compensation claimed, cannot be awarded. Further, the complainant has prayed that he want an apology and no objection letter from the opposite party and also the opposite party to make sure that in future such things should not be happen and otherwise he may not continue relationship with the opposite party etc., Such kind of reliefs cannot granted by this Forum in this case. <br /> <br /> 13. Accordingly we answer the point in negative.<br /> <br /> 14. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 1st October 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />