Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/142/2010

Yadvinder Singh S/o Nishan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Rajouria

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 142 of 2010.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 19.02.2010

                                                                                          Date of decision: 19.07.2016.

Yadvinder Singh aged about 38 Years son of Shri Nishan Singh, resident of village Bappa, P.O. Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited, having its Branch Office at Gobindpuri Road, Near J.K. Residency, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.
2. I.C.I.C.I Bank Limited having its Regd. Office at Land Mark, Race Course Circle, Vadodra, through its Manager.
3. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandera, Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051.                                                                                                                                                                                                 …Respondents.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:   Sh. Neeraj Rajoria, Advocate, counsel for complainant.    

                Sh. K.K.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents.              

             

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to return all the 60 blank cheques taken against loan or not to misuse the same and further to correct their account statement and not to charge exorbitant rate of interest and to close the account of the complainant and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant approached to OP No.1 for taking a car loan and the official of OP No.1 stated that present rate of interest on financing of car loan is 8% and complainant has to pay the loan amount in monthly equated installments. Ultimately, an amount of Rs. 1,78,750/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant by the OPs Bank on 17.11.2005. The OPs Bank had taken 60 blank cheques from the complainant on account of security and besides this the official of the OPs Bank obtained signature of the complainant on some blank and unfilled documents. The complainant paid installments regularly. However, on 24.01.2007, the car of the complainant bearing registration No. HR03E-9682 met with an accident with truck bearing registration No. HR-67A/3408. The complainant informed the OPs Bank as the car in question was financed by the OPs Bank. After that the official of the OPs Bank obtained the superdari of the said car from the Ilaqa Magistrate and sold the said car in open market. The said car was sold by the officials of the OPs Bank on the same amount which was due against the complainant on that day. After selling the car of the complainant, all the loan amount was adjusted and nothing remained due against the complainant. Moreover, the OPs Bank charged exorbitant rate of interest against the terms and conditions on which the said loan was sanctioned. Now, the OPs Bank filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by misusing the blank cheque of the complainant. After receiving the summons from the court, complainant contacted the officials of the OPs Bank and asked the reasons for this fraud and requested them to return the blank cheques given by him at the time of taking loan but the OPs Bank stated that still a huge amount is pending against the complainant. Lastly, prayed for acceptance of the complaint as there was a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Bank as the Ops Bank has not returned the blank cheques and has charged exorbitant rate of interest on the loan amount from the complainant. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OPs Bank appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections and on merit it has been admitted that complainant approached the OP No.1 for taking car loan and after completing the formalities, a sum of Rs. 1,78,750/- was sanctioned subject to the terms and conditions including the rate of interest and amount of installments were agreed vide written agreement bearing No. LURDR00005002263 dated 17.11.200. However, it has been denied that rate of interest was ever agreed at the rate of 8% per annum, as alleged. It has been further mentioned that the said loan was to be repaid in 42 monthly installments of Rs. 5870/- each w.e.f. 07.12.2005 to 07.05.2009. It has been specifically denied that 60 blank cheques were obtained from the complainant. It has been submitted that a sum of Rs. 2,23,047/- as on 29.05.2010 is outstanding, as per statement of account, against the complainant. Hence, the present complaint has been filed on the false and frivolous grounds. It has been further mentioned that in accident case, car was taken into custody by the police but the complainant was not interested to release the said car from the custody of police nor he made payment of the arrear of the installments, so, finding no way, the OPs Bank got released the car on Superdari from the court after obtaining the “No Objection Certificate” from the complainant. The car in question was released on Superdari in March, 2008 to the Op Bank and the said car is in the shape of totally damaged and the same is lying in the form of Salvage with the Bank till date. Lastly, it has been prayed that as the complainant has not repaid the loan amount and is the defaulter of the OPs Bank, so, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as CW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant whereas on the other hand, counsel for the OPs Bank tendered into evidence short affidavit of Manager of ICICI Bank as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of application form for taking loan as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of terms and conditions as Annexure R-2, photo copy of account statement as Annexure R-3 & R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs Bank.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     It is not disputed that the complainant obtained a car loan of Rs. 1,78,750/- from the OPs Bank which was to be repaid in 42 monthly installments of Rs. 5870/- w.e.f. 07.12.2005 to 07.05.2009 and executed the loan agreement.

7.                     The only prayer of the complainant is that the OPs Bank be directed to return all the 60 blank cheques received by the OPs Bank at the time of sanctioning the loan or not misuse all these blank cheques and further not to charge exorbitant rate of interest and to close the account of the complainant whereas the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent evidence in support of his version. The complainant has tendered only his own affidavit to prove the case whereas on the other hand, as per OPs Bank an amount of Rs. 2,23,047/- was due against the complainant as on 29.05.2010. From the perusal of account statement Annexure R-3 and R-4 it is evident that huge amount is outstanding against the complainant on account of principal amount as well as other charges. Further, the complainant has himself admitted in para No.7 of his complaint that after receiving the summons from the Ilaqa Magistrate under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, he approached the OPs Bank to settle the account of the complainant. Meaning thereby that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to save the skin from the criminal proceedings initiated by the OPs Bank against the complainant, otherwise no cogent evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove his case. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint of complainant.

8.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 19.07.2016.

                                                 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                                PRESIDENT,

 

 

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                    MEMBER