Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

312/2009

M.Chocklingam - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd & another - Opp.Party(s)

K.Vinod

10 Jul 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 04.03.2009

                                                                          Date of Order : 10.07.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.312/2009

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2018

                                 

Mr. M. Chocklingam,

F. No.501, Arihand Garuda Apartments,

No.17/2, Police Manickam Street,

Ayanavaram,

Chennai – 600 023.                                                  .. Complainant.                                                      ..Versus..

 

1. ICICI Bank Limited,

No.46, Gandhi Mandapam Road,

Koturpuram,

Chennai – 600 085.

 

2.  ICICI Bank Limited,

II Floor, East Wing,

No.24, South Phase,

Ambattur Industrial Estate,

Chennai – 600 058.                                         ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                     :  Mr. K. Vinod

Counsel for 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties  :  M/s. K. Kumaran

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to rectify the mistake and issue a proper statement of account for the complainant’s account, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, physical hardship and strain, to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- towards compensation for business and financial loss with cost of the complaint.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that on the assurance of the opposite parties, regarding lowest rate of interest for personal loan availed Rs.2,00,000/-  repayable in 48 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.5,566/- from 05.08.2006 to 05.07.2010.  The opposite parties disbursed a sum of Rs.1,95,510/- alone on 14.07.2006 withholding a sum of Rs.4,490/-.  Further the complainant submits that he was regular in repayment of the loan, during the month of August, September and October 2006.  Thereafter, in the month of October 2006, the opposite party debited 2 EMIs dated:05.10.2006 and 09.10.2006 for Rs.5,566/- each.  The complainant questioned the opposite parties  in debiting 2 EMIs in the same month several times.   But the opposite parties did not give any proper reply. Further the complainant submits that he is running the business under the name of Garuda Fasteners, Padi for his livelihood borrowing loans and paid periodically.  Due to the double recovery by the opposite parties, the complainant’s business met with severe loss.  The cheques issued by the complainant towards commitments were dishonoured.  Further the complainant submits that the complainant has sustained huge loss of Rs.16,00,000/- in his business and due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties the complainant sustained great mental agony.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated:21.09.2008 to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not sent any reply for the same.    The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony to the complainant.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 1^st opposite party states that after following the procedures due loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant.   The complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of EMI.  The allegation that 2 EMIs were collected on 05.10.2006 & 09.10.2006 towards EMI can be adjusted any time.  But the complainant has not paid the subsequent EMIs and defaulted in payment of EMI.  The cheques issued by the complainant also returned dishonoured.  The complainant cannot claim any compensation or damages after making default in payment.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the 2^nd  opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 2^nd opposite party states that after following the procedures due loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant.   The complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of EMI.  The allegation that 2 EMIs were collected on 05.10.2006 & 09.10.2006 towards EMI can be adjusted any time.  But the complainant has not paid the subsequent EMIs and defaulted in payment of EMI.  The cheques issued by the complainant also returned dishonoured.  The complainant cannot claim any compensation or damages after making default in payment.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

5.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- towards loss of business, financial loss due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties as prayed for with cost?

6.     On point:-

The complainant filed his written arguments.  The opposite parties neither filed written arguments nor turned up to advance oral arguments. Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that on the assurance of the opposite parties, regarding lowest rate of interest for personal loan availed Rs.2,00,000/-  repayable in 48 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.5,566/- from 05.08.2006 to 05.07.2010 is admitted.  The opposite parties disbursed a sum of Rs.1,95,510/- alone on 14.07.2006 withholding a sum of Rs.4,490/- .  Further the contention of the complainant is that he was regular in repayment of the loan, during the month of August, September and October 2006.  Thereafter, in the month of October 2006, the opposite party debited 2 EMIs dated:5.10.2006 and 09.10.2006 for Rs.5,566/- each vide Ex.A1.  The act of the opposite parties debiting 2 EMIs in the same month was questioned several times.  But the opposite parties remained silent proves the deficiency in service.    

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that he is running the business under the name of Garuda Fasteners, Padi for his livelihood borrowing loans and paid periodically.  Due to the double recovery by the opposite parties, the complainant’s business met with severe loss.  The cheques issued by the complainant towards commitments were dishonoured.  But the complainant has not stated anything with regard to the further payment of EMI towards the personal loan sanctioned by the opposite parties.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the complainant has sustained huge loss of Rs.16,00,000/- in his business and due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties the complainant sustained great mental agony.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony also.  But the law is well settled that the defaulter cannot claim any deficiency in service. 

8.     The contention of the opposite parties is that after following the procedures due loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant.   The complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of EMI.  The allegation that 2 EMIs were collected on 05.10.2006 & 09.10.2006 towards EMI can be adjusted any time.  But the complainant has not paid the subsequent EMIs and defaulted in payment of EMI as per Ex.A2.  The cheques issued by the complainant also returned dishonoured.  The complainant cannot claim any compensation or damages after making default in payment. There is no deficiency in service.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of July 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1		Copy of statement of account from 01.10.2006 to 31.10.2006 issued by Indian Overseas Bank
Ex.A2	31.07.2007	Copy of letter sent by the opposite party to complainant
Ex.A3	21.09.2008	Copy of legal notice sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A4		Copy of postal receipt

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

2^ND OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT