COMPLAINTS FILED ON: 01.02.2010
DISPOSED ON:06.03.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
6th DAY OF MARCH-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT No.211/2010
Complainant OPPOSITE PARTIES | Venkataswamy Aged about 70 years, No.93, Kadirenapalaya, 1st Cross, Indiranagara Post, Bangalore. Adv:Sri.Lokesh Boovanahalli V/s. 1. ICICI Bank Limited, Rep by its Regional Manager, R.O, Commissionrate Road, Near M.G.Road, Bangalore. 2. ICICI Bank Limited, Rep by its Manager, Credit Card Operations, P.O.Box, No.20, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034. Adv:J.S.Advocates & Legal Consultants |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to pay sum of Rs.84,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:
During the month of February-2007, agent of the OP approached the complainant to lend personnel loan at the rate of 7.5% and accordingly the complainant availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same in 37 monthly instalments each EMI of Rs.5,333.33 p.m. Since March-2007 the complainant was regularly paying EMI amount as per the amortization schedule issued by OP2 by way of cheque on or before 15th of every month without fail. Ops enchashed the said cheques only after the 20th day onwards of every month. OP issued a letter demanding to pay an additional amount of Rs.9,877/- towards the late payment. The complainant caused a letter dt.18.09.2008 requesting OP to furnish explanation for the said amount. OP replied on 01.10.2008 stating that due to the delayed and part payment towards the credit card, made to pay service charges on the same. During the month of September-2008, Ops agent to approached the complainant stating that the EMI cheque bearing No.70201 issued by the complainant for the month of September-2008 is misplaced and requested to issue another cheque for the said EMI. Hence the complainant issued another cheque bearing No.70205 for Rs.5,333.33/-EMI for the month of September-2008. The cheque No.70201 issued EMI for the month of September-2008 was encashed on 12.09.2008 and the alternative cheque No.70305(wrongly shown as 70305) for Rs.5,333.33 EMI collected for the month of September-2008 is also encashed on 01.10.2008. Due to the said conduct and services, the complainant made complaint on 19.12.2008 to Ombudsman RBI, Bangalore seeking for the proper relief for the said illegalities. The RBI after considering the complaint and after enquiry directed OP2 to refund the excess amount of Rs.18,217/- to the complainant. On 31.03.2009 OP had sent a detailed letter of explanation along with Amortization schedule and statement of account and further undertaken to adjust the excess amount of Rs.18,217/- in further usage/debit. The new amortization schedule, service charges and etc given are totally against the Amortization schedule issued at the time of borrowing the personnel loan during the month of February-2007. The complainant requested OP to issue balance details payable for final settlement. On 01.07.2009 OP1 has issued a letter showing the balance amount of Rs.1,16,664/- payable on or before July-2009 and accordingly the complainant has foreclosed the said amount on 03.07.2009. OP2 failed to give services as assured and which are against Amortization schedule issued earlier and further they have unnecessarily imposed many more charges in different heads, collected extra 5 premiums (EMI), additional premium amount of Rs.10,666/- for the month of September-2008 and such other charges without any basis and in all OP2 is liable to an amount of Rs.26,666/- and service charges of Rs.5,000/- and in total Rs.42,000/-. The complainant got issued legal notice dt.18.12.2009, in spite of receipt of notice, Ops failed to repay the said amount. The complainant has been put to financial loss in addition to mental agony on account of failure of Ops to give proper services. Thereby Ops are liable to pay compensation of Rs.42,000/- by way of damages to the complainant. Thus the complainant is claiming total amount of Rs.84,000/- from Ops.
3. On appearance OP1 filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed the true material facts. The complainant has not come with clean hands. It is admitted that the personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant on the credit card to be repayable in 48 equated monthly instalments of Rs.5333.33 and not the 37 EMI. The complainant’s EMI, got debited to the credit card account on 5th of every month, which is payable as per the billing cycle and due date of the statement of account mentioned in the credit card. The payment has to be made on or before 25th of every month. Due to nor payment of total amount due within the due date, the other charges/penalty imposed on the card as per the agreed terms while availing the facility. As demand letter was issued and on clarification the same was replied suitably to the complaint. The payment of Rs.5,333.33/-made through cheque No.70201 dt.15.09.2008 has been returned unpaid and the same was returned to the complainant with Memo. In spite of receipt of the said letter dt.31.03.2009 from OP, the complainant has never reverted. Hence the allegation that the OP has encashed the said cheque is false and baseless. On receipt of the Ombudsmen complaint, OP considering the customer relationship reversed all the other charges and sent detail clarification with amortization letter by waiving the interest charged and late payment charges. By waiving such charges there was credit balance of Rs.18,217.56 in the complainants credit card, which would be get adjusted towards further usage/debit on credit card. The complainant after availing waiver of interest and other charges and getting credit of Rs.18,217.56 to his credit card, with detail reply from the OP, foreclosed the loan as per the terms agreed without any protest. Now after foreclosing the loan approached this Hon’ble Forum without any justification claiming that OP has charged excess EMI and other charges totaling Rs.42,000/-. Hence charging the interest and other charges as per the agreed terms will not amount to deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Pursuant to the said receipt usage of the credit card, the complainant had undertaken to make the payment towards outstanding on the credit card within the period therein. However, contrary to the terms and conditions contained, the complainant defaulted in payment of outstanding amount on the card in spite of repeated requests, reminders and demands and despite sufficient opportunities granted. The complainant had failed, neglected and refused to do so in spite of being fully aware that timely and regular payment of due amount is the essence of the contract. The complainant had defaulted in the payment of the outstanding on his credit card in spite of several follow-ups to collect legitimate contractual dues. The complainant had failed to show the date of cause of action arisen for filing the complaint and claiming the compensation of Rs.84,000/-. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. The complainant in order to substantiate the complaint averments filed affidavit evidence. The Legal Manager of OP-Bank filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.
5. Both parties filed Written Arguments.
6. Arguments on both sides heard.
7. Points for consideration are:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved
the deficiency in service on the part
of the OPs?
Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant is
entitled for the relief now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
8. We record our findings on the above points are:
Point No.1:- Negative.
Point No.2:- Negative.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
9. At the outset it is not at dispute that during the month of February-2007 the complainant availed personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from Ops-Bank at the rate of 7.5% interest p.a. The complainant claims that the said loan amount was repayable in 37 monthly instalments each EMI of Rs.5,333.33/-p.m. But Ops claims that the said loan amount was sanctioned on the credit card to be repayable in 48 equated monthly instalments of Rs.5,333.33/-. Further the defence of the Ops is that the complainant’s EMI got debited to the credit card account on 5th on every month which is payable as per the billing cycle and due date of the statement of account mentioned in the credit card. The payment has to be made on or before 25th of every month.
We are unable to accept the case of the complainant that the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was repayable in 37 monthly instalments of Rs.5,333.33/- paise, if it is fixed at 37 EMIs at the rate of Rs.5,333.33/- the same works out at Rs.1,97,321/- which even does not cover the principle amount of Rs.2,00,000/- advanced. The defence that the said loan amount was repayable in 48 equated instalments is to be accepted as the same works out at Rs.2,55,984/- which includes the interest and other charges. Therefore, the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts regarding the total number of instalments for repayment of the loan.
10. The complainant has produced amortization schedule document No.1, the first page of the same contains 37 monthly EMIs commencing from 20.03.2007 to 20.03.2010, the next page contains 11 instalments commencing from 20.04.2010 to 20.02.2011. Thus the total EMIs is 48 but not 37 as claimed by the complainant. The amount is also shown towards principle Rs.2,00,000/- and towards interest Rs.55,999/-.
11. The case of the complainant is that as per his request Ops issued balance details payable for final settlement and Op1 issued letter on 01.07.2009 showing the balance amount of Rs.1,16,664/- and accordingly he has foreclosed the said amount on 03.07.2009. We perused document No.11 produced by the complainant which is copy of the cheque dt.03.07.2009 issued in favour of OP for an amount of Rs.1,14,574.27/-. The document No.10 contains the total amount due in the credit card account of the complainant. The net payment to be made is shown as Rs.1,14,574.74/-, for the said amount the complainant has issued the cheque as per document No.11 and closed the account.
12. Now the grievances of the complainant is while collecting the amount at the time of final settlement Ops have collected 5 extra premiums of each Rs.5,333.33/- and further for the month of September-2008 Ops collected two EMIs totally amounting to Rs.10,666/-, on the ground that earlier cheque No.70201 issued towards the EMI of September is misplaced and the complainant issued another cheque bearing No.70305 for Rs.5,333.33/- towards EMI for the month of September-2008, Ops got encashed both cheques thereby collected total amount of Rs.10,666/- towards EMI for the month of September-2008. The defence of the Ops is the cheque bearing No.70201 dt.15.09.2008 has been returned unpaid and the same was returned to the complainant with Memo the other cheque issued for the said amount was encashed. Therefore, there is no question of both the cheques being encahsed towards EMI of September-2008. It may be noted that the Amortization Schedule as per document No.9 produced by the complainant clearly goes to show that on 12.09.2008 the cheque payment is debited in the total amount due on 14.09.2008, the said cheque was shown as returned, the amount of Rs.5,333.33/- is shown in the total amount due from the complainant. Thus it cannot be said that the earlier cheque issued bearing No.70201 has been encashed by the Ops. The complainant could have produced the account extract of his Bank to show that the said cheque has been encashed and the amount has been debited to his account. Therefore, we are unable to accept that the said cheque bearing No.70201 has been encashed as claimed by the complainant.
13. Further the complainant has not stated that details of extra 5 premiums (EMI) stated to have been collected by the Ops. At the time of paying the total amount due the complainant could have raised the objections regarding any extra premium collected. Ops after taking into consideration of all the amounts paid, the balance amount was shown at Rs.1,14,574.27/- accordingly the complainant has paid the said amount through cheque dt.03.07.2009 and has closed the account. The allegations that Ops have unnecessarily imposed many more charges on different heads is vague allegation without showing the specific figures as to which of the amounts are collected as an extra amounts. The Amortization Schedule shown as document No.8 and was produced by the complainant shows the details of the payments made including the process fee and Service Tax. After going through the entire amount due the complainant has repaid the loan amount. Now he is claiming that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was collected towards service charges apart from 5 additional premiums which works out Rs.26,666/- and monthly EMIs for the month of September-2008 of Rs.10,666/- totally Rs.42,000/-. We have gone through the Account Statements, there is no material to show that Ops have collected 5 extra EMIs and additional premium amount for the month of September-2008. The complainant is liable to pay service charges as per the terms and conditions, accordingly he has paid the same. Thus there is no merit in the contention that Ops are liable to refund Rs.42,000/- and complainant is entitled for another sum of Rs.42,000/- by way of damages. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complaint is devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Considering the nature of dispute there is no order as to costs.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 6th day of March-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
