ICICI Bank ltd V/S Arulselvam S - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2128

Arulselvam S - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank ltd - Opp.Party(s)

in person

26 Nov 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2128

Arulselvam S						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
ICICI Bank ltd personal loans ICICI bank ltd						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.09.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 26th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2128/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Arul Selvam. S, S/o. Sri. K.R. Sambandam, Aged about 29 years, G-2, Saveri, Vandana Nest Apartment, 7th A Cross, Jakkasandra Extension, Koramangala 1st Block, Bangalore 560 034. Advocate (A. Shivaram) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY 1. ICICI Bank Ltd., No. 5, 80 Feet, Koramangala 7th Block, Bangalore 560 095. 2. Personal Loan, ICICI Bank Ltd., Lank Mark Race Course Circle, Vadodara 390 007. Advocate (B.S. Sudhir) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and refund Rs.14,064/- collected in excess with interest and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP repayable in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.7,032/- starting from 07.08.2005. A loan agreement came to be executed on 20.06.2005. Complainant is regular in making repayment of the said loan. OP took promissory note as a collateral security. In addition to that collected 6 cheques bearing No. 190305 to 190310 for Rs.42,192/- which are drawn on ICICI Bank. To the utter shock and surprise of the complainant he got statement on 17.09.2005 wherein OP extended the tenure of repayment of the said loan to 48 EMI and shown the last payment by 07.07.2009, in place of 07.07.2008, which is arbitrary. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to rectify the said mistake, went in vain. As per the schedule complainant repaid the entire loan by 07.07.2008, but still OP encashed another EMI of Rs.7,032/- on 07.08.2008 and another EMI cheque for the same amount to the subsequent month. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant issued the legal notice on 25.08.2008. Again there was no response. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to the OP on the receipt of the notice from the complainant they rectified the mistake without any delay and refunded the said amount to the complainant. The presentation of ECS is a technical mistake which is beyond the control of the OP. There is no malafide intention to cause either monetary loss or mental agony to the complainant. When OP has rectified its mistake and paid the amount, there was no reasons for the complainant to file this complaint. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP repayable in 36 EMI together with interest at the rate of Rs.7,032/- starting from 07.08.2005. A loan agreement came to be executed on 20.06.2005. It is also not at dispute that complainant is regular in making payment of the said EMI and the fact that OP took the promissory note and 6 cheques as a collateral security towards the repayment of the said loan. 7. According to the complainant he has paid all the EMI and closed the account by 07.07.2008. With all that OP though returned the said 6 cheques on 19.09.2008 but encashed one more EMI on 07.08.2008 and so also on 07.09.2008, two instalments are encashed nearly to the tune of Rs.14,064/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that though he is liable to repay the said loan in 36 EMI OP arbitrarily increased the EMI to 48 which is unjust and improper. The document speaks to the above said tactics of the OP. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. OP wants to set up some untenable defence tainted with ulterior motive. OP admits that it has presented two more cheques for encashement evenafter the closure of the said loan by the complainant on 07.07.2008 and those EMI encashed referred to August and September. When the complainant brought the said defect to the notice of the OP by causing the legal notice on 25.08.2008, then OP opened its eyes and rectified the said mistake and refunded the said amount, that too after lapse of two months on 23.10.2008. 9. The admitted facts themselves go to show that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other defence set out by the OP is that the presentation of the said ECS is a technical mistake. OP is not bound to commit such technical mistakes that too when the approach of its customer is very fair, honest and disciplined. If such kind of harassment is made to the customer/consumer then they will loss the faith in the whole banking system itself. There is no diligence on the part of the OP. OP has taken things very casually. Such an attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. The refund of the said amount of Rs.14,064/- after lapse of 2 months from the date of causing of the legal notice after one month of filing of complaint is not a solution. The mental trauma suffered by the complainant deserves to be compensated. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.500/- and return the promissory note taken from the complainant as a collateral security. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- and return the original promissory note collected from the complainant as a collateral security for the repayment of the said personal loan. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.09.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 26th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2128/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Arul Selvam. S, S/o. Sri. K.R. Sambandam, Aged about 29 years, G-2, Saveri, Vandana Nest Apartment, 7th A Cross, Jakkasandra Extension, Koramangala 1st Block, Bangalore 560 034. Advocate (A. Shivaram) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY 1. ICICI Bank Ltd., No. 5, 80 Feet, Koramangala 7th Block, Bangalore 560 095. 2. Personal Loan, ICICI Bank Ltd., Lank Mark Race Course Circle, Vadodara 390 007. Advocate (B.S. Sudhir) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and refund Rs.14,064/- collected in excess with interest and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP repayable in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.7,032/- starting from 07.08.2005. A loan agreement came to be executed on 20.06.2005. Complainant is regular in making repayment of the said loan. OP took promissory note as a collateral security. In addition to that collected 6 cheques bearing No. 190305 to 190310 for Rs.42,192/- which are drawn on ICICI Bank. To the utter shock and surprise of the complainant he got statement on 17.09.2005 wherein OP extended the tenure of repayment of the said loan to 48 EMI and shown the last payment by 07.07.2009, in place of 07.07.2008, which is arbitrary. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to rectify the said mistake, went in vain. As per the schedule complainant repaid the entire loan by 07.07.2008, but still OP encashed another EMI of Rs.7,032/- on 07.08.2008 and another EMI cheque for the same amount to the subsequent month. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant issued the legal notice on 25.08.2008. Again there was no response. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to the OP on the receipt of the notice from the complainant they rectified the mistake without any delay and refunded the said amount to the complainant. The presentation of ECS is a technical mistake which is beyond the control of the OP. There is no malafide intention to cause either monetary loss or mental agony to the complainant. When OP has rectified its mistake and paid the amount, there was no reasons for the complainant to file this complaint. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP repayable in 36 EMI together with interest at the rate of Rs.7,032/- starting from 07.08.2005. A loan agreement came to be executed on 20.06.2005. It is also not at dispute that complainant is regular in making payment of the said EMI and the fact that OP took the promissory note and 6 cheques as a collateral security towards the repayment of the said loan. 7. According to the complainant he has paid all the EMI and closed the account by 07.07.2008. With all that OP though returned the said 6 cheques on 19.09.2008 but encashed one more EMI on 07.08.2008 and so also on 07.09.2008, two instalments are encashed nearly to the tune of Rs.14,064/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that though he is liable to repay the said loan in 36 EMI OP arbitrarily increased the EMI to 48 which is unjust and improper. The document speaks to the above said tactics of the OP. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. OP wants to set up some untenable defence tainted with ulterior motive. OP admits that it has presented two more cheques for encashement evenafter the closure of the said loan by the complainant on 07.07.2008 and those EMI encashed referred to August and September. When the complainant brought the said defect to the notice of the OP by causing the legal notice on 25.08.2008, then OP opened its eyes and rectified the said mistake and refunded the said amount, that too after lapse of two months on 23.10.2008. 9. The admitted facts themselves go to show that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other defence set out by the OP is that the presentation of the said ECS is a technical mistake. OP is not bound to commit such technical mistakes that too when the approach of its customer is very fair, honest and disciplined. If such kind of harassment is made to the customer/consumer then they will loss the faith in the whole banking system itself. There is no diligence on the part of the OP. OP has taken things very casually. Such an attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. The refund of the said amount of Rs.14,064/- after lapse of 2 months from the date of causing of the legal notice after one month of filing of complaint is not a solution. The mental trauma suffered by the complainant deserves to be compensated. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.500/- and return the promissory note taken from the complainant as a collateral security. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- and return the original promissory note collected from the complainant as a collateral security for the repayment of the said personal loan. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.