DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 84 of 2010 Date of Inst:10.02.2010 Date of Decision:17.08.2010 Inderjit Singh r/o H.No.2060, Sector 45, Burail, UT, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. ICICI Bank Ltd., having one of the Branch Office at SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Manager. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., having Corporate Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. 3. ICICI Combard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER PRESENT: Ms.Mamta Malik, Adv. for complainant Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Inderjit Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) Pay Rs.30,181/- as outstanding dues against the policy. ii) Pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc. iii) Correct the record in the CIBIL with immediate effect. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 08.09.2006, he took home loan of Rs.7 lacs from OPs. The loan was also got insured by OP-1 from OP-3 at the time of its disbursement. The complainant requested OPs for enhancement of the loan but OPs refused to do so. Ultimately, the complainant approached Axis Bank who agreed to enhance the loan and take over the entire loan of the complainant from OP-1 after full and final settlement of the loan account. Thus, the entire loan was settled. OP issued letter (Annexure C-2) to this effect. According to the complainant, in the said letter (Annexure C-2), it has been specifically mentioned that home loan of the complainant has been settled in full and final and there is no outstanding dues against him. According to the complainant, after few days, OP-1 started demanding outstanding dues qua the insurance policy issued against the said home loan. On 04.12.2008, OP-1 even filed an application for the recovery of outstanding dues in the Lok Adalat. The matter was settled in Mega Lok Adalat . The copy of the order dated 20.12.2008 passed by the Mega Lok Adalat is Annexure C-3. It has further been asserted by the complainant that said insurance policy was not cancelled by OP-1 despite his requests. Subsequently, OP-3 issued letters dated 07.01.2009 and 12.12.2009 (Annexure C-7 and C-8) stating that the policy in question had been cancelled. Despite it, according to the complainant, OPs intimated CIBIL that the complainant is a defaulter. So the name of the complainant has been put in the defaulters list prepared by CIBIL. The case of the complainant is that even after full and final settlement of the loan account, failure of cancellation of the insurance policy amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2, it has been admitted that the complainant took home loan of Rs.7 lacs. According to OPs, they have closed the home loan account on payment of the outstanding dues. It has further been pleaded that the insurance policy in question was taken by the complainant from OP-3 which is a separate legal entity and OPs No.1 and 2 have no role to play in the same. All other pleadings of the complainant have been denied by OPs No.1 and 2. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on part of OPs No.1 and 2 and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. In the reply filed by the OP-3, it has been admitted that the complainant took the home loan insurance policy. It has been pleaded that the said insurance policy was cancelled on 07.01.2009 on the request of the complainant. After deduction of the proportionate premium, a sum of Rs.9257/- was refunded vide letter dated 07.01.2009 (Annexure C-8). All other pleadings of the complainant have been denied for want of knowledge. In these circumstances, according to OP-3, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. The averment made by the complainant to the effect that he had taken a home loan of Rs.7 lacs from OPs is proved from the letter Annexure C-1/A issued by OPs whereby the said loan was sanctioned to the complainant. Annexure C-2 is the letter dated 12.03.2008 whereby it has been acknowledged that the above said loan has been repaid in full and no amount is outstanding against the complainant. Thus, the averment made by the complainant to the effect that the said loan was taken over by Axis Bank and all the outstanding dues were paid to the OP-Bank stands proved. Annexure C-12 and C-13 are the receipts regarding payment of Rs.2,373/- and Rs.21,000/- respectively. The above said amount was received by OP-Bank against home loan bearing No.LBCHD00001496471 which is different from the home loan sanctioned to the complainant vide letter (Annexure C-1/A). There is no averment in the written statement to the effect that the complainant had taken another home loan or OP had ever sanctioned another home loan to the complainant. The receipts mentioned above are dated 06.10.2009 and 23.12.2009 i.e. after the letter dated 12.03.2008 (Annexure C-2) wherein it has been mentioned that the entire loan has been repaid. Thus, admittedly, the complainant had paid the entire loan on or before 12.03.2008. The acceptance of Rs.2,373/- and Rs.21,000/- vide receipts (Annexure C-12 and C-13) amounts to unfair trade practice as no amount was outstanding against the complainant on that date. The statement of account (Annexure C-14) and letter(Annexure C-9) have no relevance as there is no pleading to this effect in the written statement filed by the OPs that the complainant had taken another home loan. Thus, the above said amount has been illegally and un-authorizedly recovered by OPs from the complainant and therefore, he is entitled to the above said amount. 7. In so far as the insurance policy is concerned, the same has already been cancelled as is evident from letter dated 07.01.2009 (Annexure C-8) and a sum of Rs.9,257/- has since been refunded as proportionate premium for unexpired period to the complainant. The said insurance policy was cancelled by OP-3 within a reasonable period from the date of request made by the complainant for cancellation. So there is no deficiency in service on this score on the part of OP-3. Therefore, the complaint qua OP-3 stands dismissed. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs No.1 and 2 to refund Rs.2,373/- and Rs.21,000/- respectively to the complainant. OPs No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 and 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP Nos. 1 and 2 shall be liable to refund Rs.43,373/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 10.02.2010 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 17.08.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
