Haryana

Ambala

CC/264/2017

Vinod Kumar Pahwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

C.M.Sehgal

15 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  264 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  24.07.2017

                                                          Date of decision   :  15.06.2018

 

 

Vinod Kumar Pahwa son of Shri Amar Nath Pahwa, aged about 45 years, resident of House No2391/2, Near Sohan Lal Girls School, Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City.

     ……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       ICICI Bank Ltd, RAPG Division, Basement, Aggarsain Chowk, Ambala City, through its Authorised Signatory/Attorney.

2.       Shri Puneet Madan, Collection Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. RAPG Division, Basement, Aggarsain Chowk, Ambala City.

 

 

  ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

                            

 

Present:       Sh.C.M.Sehgal, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. A.K.Kaushik, counsel for OP Nos. 1 & 2.

 

 

ORDER:

                     The complainant has filed this complaint against OP with the averments that the complainant is owner of Scorpio bearing registration no.HR-37-B-7688, Model 2006. He obtained loan facility from ICICI Bank at the time of the purchase of the vehicle. Thereafter, a settlement of dues of Auto loan account No.LAAMB00006462070 took place between the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and the complainant, vide settlement/discussion dated 19.12.2016 settled the claim and thereafter the OP Nos. 1 & 2 sent a letter dated 22.12.2016 to the complainant and thereafter, the OP Nos.1 & 2 agreed to settle the loan amount for a sum of Rs.1,85,000/-. It was further agreed that the settlement amount shall be paid by the complainant on or before 26.12.2016. It was also settled that after the deposit of Rs.1,85,000/- the OP Nos.1 & 2 will issue NOC and Form No.35 for deletion of higher purchase entry from the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. It was a full and final amount and thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs. 1,85,000/- in the Bank on 22.12.2016 and the Bank has also issued pay in slip for loan customers. At the time of one time settlement and after the receipt of Rs.185000/- the OP Nos.1 & 2 assured the complainant that the above said Form and NOC will be issued to the complainant within 15 days from the receipt. The complainant visited the OP Nos. 1 & 2 several times after 22.12.2016 to issue Form No.35 and NOC but the Op Nos. 1 & 2 failed to do so, inspite of deposit of full and final payment. The complainant was forced to serve a legal notice to OP Nos.1 & 2 through Advocate dated 05.06.2017. Due to the conduct of the Ops, the complainant suffered too much harassment, loss of time and finance. Hence the present complaint.

2.                 On notice OPs appeared and filed their written statement and stating therein that it is incorrect that it was settled after deposit of Rs. 1,85,000/- the Ops will issue NOC and Form no.35 for deletion of hire purchase entry from the registration certificate of his vehicle. It is further incorrect that it was full and final amount and thereafter the complainant deposited Rs. 1,85,000/- on 22.12.2016. They also submitted that at the time of discussion and at the time of issuance of settlement letter it was clearly stated to the complainant that, “in case you have taken any other loan/stood guarantor for the loan or card product from the bank which has outstanding dues, then the bank will be within its right to with hold the No dues certificate and related documents  for the said loan/card product till such time all pending dues are paid by the customer to be bank”. The complainant holds a Credit Card with the OP and has been defaulting in the said card account and there is a total outstanding of Rs.83,503.75/- in the credit card account and he has only settled the Auto loan account but as auto loan is linked with card account dues, NOC is blocked due to non- payment of card account. Further   it is integral part of settlement letter issued for nay loan if there are any other loan/liability pending for same customer, then NOC shall be kept on hold for settled account. In spite of repeated requested and reminder s the complainant failed to respond to our follow-up and thereby  neglected to pay the outstanding amount and regularize his said card account, till dated.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 to C-5 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A with documents as annexure R-1 to R-31 and closed their evidence.

4.                Arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused. It is admitted fact that the complainant has availed the loan facilities from the OP No.1. It is also admitted fact that complainant and OP No.1 were agreed to settled the loan amount in one time settlement  for Rs.1,85,000/-. It was also agreed between the parties that the amount will paid by the complainant on or before 26.12.2016. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 185000/- with OP on 22.12.2016 before agreed date.  But OP has denied  to issue the NOC and Form No.35 for deletion of hire purchase entry from the registration authority.  They have declined the NOC  of the complainant on the ground that as per settlement letter it is mentioned that “in case you have taken any other loan/stood guarantor  for loan or card product from the bank which has outstanding  dues,  then bank will be within  its rights to withhold  the “No dues  pending certificate” and related documents for the said loan/card product, till such time all pending are paid by customer to the bank” and Ops have taken the objection in written statement  that the complainant has used  a credit card account with OP bearing no.4477 4770 3711 8003 and  there is total amount  of Rs. 83,503.75 is due in the credit card account. We have also gone through the outstanding amount as per Annexure R-3 and amount Rs. 83,503.75/- shown as outstanding in the year 2007 and same amount has been  shown upto year 2010.

On the other hand, the complainant has argued that he never used the credit card. In that situation, Ops are supposed to produce the transaction detail of usage of credit card. At the time of argument, this Forum has asked to the Ops to place  the transaction record to ascertain whether  the complainant has used the credit card time to time but counsel for the Ops stated that there is no record available in the bank except the card statement Annexure R-2.

5.                          In the above discussion, we are considered view that the above said credit card  amount cannot be recovered from the complainant by the Ops, being  time barred under the grab of the above said condition mentioned above (in the settlement letter dated 22.12.2016) Annexure C-2 and the OPs could file the recovery suit and they were liberty to take  the legal action for recovery for the above said amount as per the law but they failed to adopt the abvoesaid course for recovery of the amount. Therefore, the Ops have wrongly withheld the NOC and Form no.35 in regard to the Auto loan account No.LAAMB00006462070. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed against Ops with no order as to cost  and OPs are directed to issue the NOC and Form No. 35 within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on :15.06.2018