Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/09/279

ANIL GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2009

(Arising out of order dated 23.12.2008 passed in C.C. No. 296/2008 by the District Forum, Gwalior)  

 

ANIL GOYAL.                                                                           …            APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI BANK,

BRANCH-PADAV, GWALIOR.                                                  …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL     :      MEMBER

 

                                                O R D E R

27.04.2016

 

          None for the appellant.

            Shri Subhash Dhote, learned counsel for the respondent.           

           

As per Shri Subhash Jain : 

                      None was present for the appellant on 19.04.2012, 17.07.2012, 07.12.2012, 01.03.2014, 15.06.2015 and 06.10.2015.  On the last date of hearing i.e. 06.10.2015 SPC was directed to be issued to appellant for his presence today.  Accordingly SPC No. 5805 dated 17.11.2015 was issued to appellant informing the next date i.e. today but none is present today.  It seems that appellant is not interested to pursue this appeal.  We have therefore heard counsel for respondent and proceed to decide the case on merits.

2.                     This is an appeal filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) against the order dated 23.12.2008 passed in C.C.No. 296/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as ‘Forum’) whereby the complaint has been dismissed.

3.                     We have gone through the order and record of the Forum. We find that the District Forum has very elaborately discussed in para 7 and 8 of the order that the appellant had obtained credit card from the respondent and after its use the amount was not paid and the respondent therefore lien the account of the appellant and withdrawn the amount from his account of which intimation was given to the appellant.  Since there

-2-

was no balance in his account, therefore the cheques issued by him were dishonored. The appellant has mentioned about different loans in his complaint but has not disclosed the fact of availing credit card. The appellant is bound to follow the rules and regulations of the bank.  Under these circumstances, the Forum has rightly rejected the complaint having no merits.  Here we also find that the appellant failed to prove any deficiency in service against the respondent.  The order of the District Forum is correct.  The appeal is therefore dismissed having no merits at all.