DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.175/2009
PANKAJ ELECTRICALS
Through Its Proprietor
Mr. Kuldeep Singh
R/o 17. Neb Sarai
New Delhi
….Complainant
Versus
ICICI BANK LIMITED
Green Park RAPG
New Delhi
Through its Branch Manager
ICICI BANK LIMITED (C. Place)
Videocon Tower, New Delhi
Through its Manager/Director
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 06.03.2009
Date of Order : 29.06.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
Complainant vide his complaint has requested to pass an order directing the OP (i) to refund Rs.48,888/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum being illegal deductions; (ii) to cancel the alleged loan, if any sanctioned in his favour; (iii) to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, tension & harassment etc.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The Complainant alleged that the ICICI Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP) sent its authorized representative i.e Mr. Sandeep who allured him for taking loan from the OP-Bank. On his allurement, the Complainant visited the office of OP- Bank alongwith necessary documents. The official of OP obtained signatures of the Complainant on printed proformas and blank cheques. It was promised that the OP-Bank would sanction/give loan to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- within one month. The Complainant is having Current Account in Bank of Baroda, Saket Branch, New Delhi. It was shocking to know that the OP Bank has deducted an amount of Rs.6,111/- continuously every month since 05.05.2008. As such, total amount of Rs. 48,888/- got deducted from his said Bank Account. Mr. Sandeep, on enquiry told him that a loan had been sanctioned in his name & reason of deduction of Rs. 6,111/- was told to him. The Complainant requested to refund the said amount so deducted from his Current Account. As such, the OP bank had rendered short and deficient service. Hence, the complaint.
OP, on the other hand, maintained that the Complainant had filed an ambiguous and vague complaint without mentioning the loan account and details etc. It is further averred that the Complainant had availed Car loan for the purchase of an ALTO LXI bearing Registration No. DL-9CM 6360.
The Loan amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was financed/sanctioned and accordingly Rs.2,03,257/- was credited directly through ECS in dealer’s i.e M/s Rana Motors Pvt Ltd. account on 16.02.2006 strictly in accordance with the covenants of the Loan Agreement with EMIs of Rs. 6,743/- each. The amortization schedule is exhibited at Ex. OP-/1. The Statement of Account is exhibited as Ex. OP/2. The said loan had been duly paid off by the Complainant and loan account has acquired a status of closed regular. These facts make it amply clear that the Complainant has firstly failed to mention the details of the alleged loan and could not prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP-Bank. The OP-Bank has denied the allegations of illegally deduction of Rs.6,111/- from the alleged bank account. As such, the Complainant has miserably failed to establish deficiency in service. The OP-Bank also took preliminary objections asserting that the complainant does not have any locus-standi to institute and pursue the instant complaint and further fails to establish himself to be “Consumer” as required under section 2(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act. It is also averred that no bank details/Loan details were provided. The complaint is also liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of parties as Bank of Baroda who should have been necessary in the array of party as deductions were being made regularly from Current Account of the Complainant with Bank of Baroda.
Both the parties filed Written Submissions and evidence-in-affidavit Written Statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard & concluded.
This Commission has taken into account the material placed on record and arguments were also considered. The Commission was taken through the various entries of withdrawal i.e Rs. 6,111/- through ECS to ICICI Bank by the counsel for the Complainant.
It was noticed that all these withdrawals of Rs.6,111/- were made through ECS to ICICI Bank only. At the same time the documents submitted by the OP-Bank were also looked into. The OP-Bank has clearly accepted that the Complainant was sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs. 2,10,000/- and Rs.2,03,257/- was credited to M/s Rana Motors Pvt Ltd on 16.02.2006 directly. This loan was sanctioned as car loan for its ALTO LXI car. The same had been duly paid off by the Complainant as per amortization schedule and loan account has acquired a status of closed Regular as per statement of account. The same is placed on record. The allegation of Complainant for the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and subsequently withdrawal of eight installments of Rs. 6,111/- amounting to Rs.48,888/-, has been rejected by the OP-Bank and further stated that the said transactions are false, frivolous and concocted. It was also asserted that such alleged deductions are not possible without there being a specific written instructions and authority received from the concerned account holder.
The Complainant has not produced any such evidence other than the certified statement of account of bank of Baroda account number 29190400000049 No doubt, the statement reflects the withdrawal of Rs.6,111/- each. The Complainant is running the business and understands the bank related transactions. He had already availed the loan from the OP-Bank. Alleged loan to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- was sanctioned/approved and no documents were given to him. He smelled the fraud loan till six withdrawals Rs. 6,111/- were made. However, no FIR was lodged by him in Police Station for the alleged fraud.
The OP bank did not provide any evidence contrary to with respect of six withdrawals of Rs. Rs.6111/- each through ECS to the OP Bank itself. The OP Bank stated only that these transactions are false and concocted one. This appears no reason to accept the veracity of the certified copy of statement of account.
Considering the material & averments placed before us, we are of the considered view that the OP Bank could not lead any substantive evidence which may rebut the stand of the Complainant. Hence, OP Bank is directed to compensate the amount of withdrawal from the current account of Complainant in the Bank of OP through ECS. Accordingly it is directed to refund the said amount of Rs.48,888/- in favour of the Complainant within three months from the receipt of this order failing which, the interest @ 9% per annum shall be charged.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
