CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 16/01/2012

CC / 13/2012

Mrs.Sreeja.M,

Sreeja Nivas, South Village,

Pudukkode Post,

Palakkad- 678 687 - Complainant

(By Adv.K.Dhannjayan)

Vs

1. ICICI Bank Ltd,

Registered Office at Land Mark,

Race Course Circle,

Vadodara, Gujarath – 630007

(By Adv. M.Ramesh)

2. The Manager/ Authorised Signatory,

ICICI Bank Ltd,

Registered Office at Land Mark, - Opposite parties

Race Course Circle,

Vadodara, Gujarath – 630007

(By Adv. M.Ramesh)

3. The Manager/ Authorised Signatory,

ICICI Bank Ltd, Udaya Towers,

Near Rappadi, West Fort Road,

Palakkad-678 001

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER

Brief facts of the complaint:

The complainant had taken an auto loan from the 3^rd opposite party for Rs.3,30,000/- for purchasing a new car. The opposite party has fixed the tenure of the loan and period EMI is fixed as 58 numbers commencing from 5.8.2006 to 5.5.2011. The complainant had remitted the entire payment to the opposite parties and there is no dues on any account. But the opposite parties orally stated that there is some meager amount to be paid by the complainant. So that the 3^rd opposite party referred the matter to the Lok Adalath. As per the Award of the decree it was decided to pay Rs.1,76,000/- as in full and final settlement and the defaulter shall pay Rs.22,000/- continuously for 8 months on the 30^th day of every month with effect from 30-07-09 till 28-02-2012. The date of the Award of the Lok Adalath was on 11.07.09. As per the order the complainant has remitted the entire amount without fail. Therefore the complainant asked opposite party to issue Non Objection Certificate. Thus the complainant was informed to visit the nearest retail asset branch along with the copy of registration certificate and the insurance policy to get the updation and close the loan account. In this letter the space for pending dues left blank. Therefore it can be presumed that there is no pending dues at all on this loan account of the complainant. They have also assured that they will issue NOC to the complainant within 30 days after the loan account is closed. Complainant states that there is no any reason “not to close the loan account” of the complainant. But on 25.1.2011 a demand legal notice has been issued to the complainant informing her that there is a balance amount of Rs.34,566/- which is to be paid within 7 days from the date of receipt of order if not they will initiate legal action and RR proceedings against the complainant. So the complainant sent a lawyer notice to 1^st & 3^rd opposite party stating that there is no dues to opposite parties and withdraw the lawyer notice demanding to pay Rs.34,566/- and to issue NOC. But they have not issued the NOC to the complainant.

So the complainant praying an order directing the opposite parties to quash the notice dated 25.1.2011 and declare that the mentioned amount in the said notice is not recoverable from the complainant and issue NOC to the complainant's car loan account and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

Opposite parties filed version with the following contention.

Opposite parties admits that the complainant has availed an auto loan of Rs.3,30,000/- as loan No.LAPGT 00007185838 agreeing to repay it with interest in 57 monthly installments for a period from 5.8.06 to 5.5.11 apart from the one advance EMI. The complainant was not prompt in payments. The account statement of the complainant clearly shows that she had started defaulting in repayment of the EMI from 4^th installment onwards. Since the complainant had been a chronic defaulter, as a pre litigation initiative and a possible settlement motive 3^rd opposite party bank though the District Legal Service Authority invited the complainant for a Lok Adalath hearing. Lok Adalath passed an award dtd.11.7.09 directing the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- to the bank on or before the 30^th day of each month in 8 continuation monthly installments of Rs.22,000/- for a period from 30.7.09 to 28.2.2010. But the complainant has not complied the order passed by the Lok Adalath. The complainant has paid only 7 installments as against the 8 installments ordered. Now there is an outstanding of Rs.81,638/- as on 15.2.2012 which the complainant is liable to pay as per terms of the loan agreement for the bank to issue her NOC. When the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party bank for the issuance of the NOC, the bank had issued her a letter dated 19.1.10 asking her a letter dated to visit the nearest retail asset branch with a copy of the registration certificate and also with the pending dues. It was a mischievous presumption by the complainant that the loan account was having no pending dues. When the opposite parties have raised a demand of outstanding amount the complainant preferred to send a lawyer notice to the opposite parties demanding the issuance of the NOC and withdrawal of the lawyer notice.

So that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 to A4 and Ext.B1 marked.

Heard the parties.

Issues to be considered are:

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

2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

Issue No.1 &2

It is the admitted fact that the complainant has taken an auto loan from the opposite parties and agreed to repay it with interest in 57 monthly installment for the period from 5.8.2006 to 5.5.2011. Each EMI was fixed as Rs.7,725/-. According to the complainant she has remitted the entire amount. But no document has produced to prove the same. The opposite parties submits that since the complainant had been a chronic defaulter 3^rd opposite party bank through District Legal Service Authority invited the complainant for a Lok Adalath hearing and an award was passed on 11.7.09. directing the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- to the bank on or before 30^th day of each month from 30.7.09 to 28.2.10. It was evident from Ext.A3 document. According to the complainant she has remitted the ordered amount without fail. No document has been produced to substitute the same. On the other hand opposite party produced Ext.B1 document in which it can be seen that the complainant has paid only 7 installments. So that it is very clear that the complainant has not complied the order. When the complainant asked for NOC to her car loan account 3^rd opposite party issued a letter dated 19.1.10 stating her to visit the nearest retail asset branch along with the copy of registration certificate and the insurance policy to get the updation and close the account. The said letter is marked as Ext.A1. It is true that in the Ext.A1document the colomn of 'Pending dues' left blank. But it seems that a mistake happened on the part of opposite parties. Moreover according to the Ext.A3 document “Defaulter shall pay Rs.22,000/- continuously for 8 months on the 30^th day of every English Calender month with effect from 30-7-09 till 28-2-10. Ext.A1 document is dated 19.1.10. That is before the date of last installment itself the complainant approached the opposite party for getting NOC and opposite party issued Ext.A1 letter. Complainant is having no case that she has remitted the last installment before the due date. It is true that the complainant has not remitted the last installment of Rs.22,000/- on 28.2.10. In Ext.A2 document issued by opposite parties dated 25.1.2011 the due amount is Rs.34,566/-. According to Ext.B1 document ie the loan account details as on 15.2.12 the due amount of the complainant is Rs.81,058/-. At the time of argument the counsel for opposite parties submitted that since the complainant has not complied the order of the Lok Adalath, the opposite party has calculated the due amount as per the statement of account previous to the Lok Adalath Settlement. In the Ext.B1 document the current IRR is stated as 13.71. So that the complainant is liable to pay the one installment with the interest @ 13.71. Before closing the entire loan amount opposite party is not liable to issue NOC.

From the above discussion we hold the view that the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand only) @ 13.71 for 27 months ie. Rs.28786.45.

In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.28,800/- (Rupees Twenty Eight thousand Eight hundred only)to the opposite parties. On payment of the ordered amount opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to issue NOC to the complainant within 15 days.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of May, 2012

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Letter issued by the authorized signatory from the opposite party No.3 dt.19.1.10

Ext.A2 – Copy of lawyer notice dt.25/01/2011.

Ext. A3 – Copy of the proceedings and award of Lok Adalath dt.. 11/7/09

Ext.A4 - Copy of lawyer notice dt.29/03/2011.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1- Loan account statement(Certified copy)

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil