IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of November, 2015
Filed on 10.11.2014
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.286/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Kora Mathew 1. ICICI Bank, CSI Ascension Square
Malayil, Thatthampally P.O. Collectorate – Railway Station Road
Alappuzha – 688 013 Kottayam
2. ICICI Bank, Near Pitchu Ayyer Jn.
Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant had taken a loan of Rs.1 lakh from the opposite parties for a period of 3 years. As per the terms and conditions, the loan was repayable at 36 EMIs of Rs.3,396/- each from the complainant and he entrusted 36 cheques of Lord Krishna Bank, Alleppey branch to the opposite parties. On 3.8.2006 one cheque was bounced and complainant remitted the EMI amount along with cheque bouncing charge to the opposite party as per the receipt No.4200219. After the expiry of the loan period complainant had requested the opposite party to give his NOC, but opposite party denied it. Thereafter complainant received a letter dated 23.12.2008 from the opposite party stating that his cheque Nos. 264991, 264999 were bounced. But the cheque No. 264999 was not bounced and opposite party credited it on 9.4.2007 itself. The opposite party filed PLP No.91 against the complainant before the Legal Service Authority alleging false allegations. On 15.10.2014 when the complainant approached another bank for a loan he came to know that his name is included in CIBIL SITE and that caused much mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
Complaint is not maintainable. Complainant is not a consumer. It is true that complainant approached the opposite party for a used car loan and opposite party had sanctioned loan of Rs.1 lakh. The complainant had bounced the cheque No. 264991 and the cash was received on 17.8.2006. Complainant had not fully repaid the installments of the loan account as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement by the complainant. Complainant had defaulted 12th installment by bouncing the cheque No.264992 dated 1.9.2006 for an amount of Rs.3,396/- and the same became due. The complainant had not made any effort of repaying the same. Since an amount of Rs.11,027/- was in arrears as on 30.1.2015 in the loan account, complainant is not entitled to obtain the NOC from the opposite parties. The complainant’s CIBIL (Credit Information Beuro Ltd.) ratings got effected due to the nonpayment of dues committed by him. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. Opposite party was examined as RW1. The document produced marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.A1 is the copy of the RC book of vehicle No. KL04 P 7734, Ext.A2 is the original savings account pass book of Lord Krishna Bank, Ext.A3 is the payment receipt dated 14.8.2006, Ext.A4 is the letter dated 23.12.2008 issued by ICICI Bank to the complainant, Ext.A5 is the copy of the page No.9 of the pass book, Ext.A6 is the copy of the sales contract dated 15.10.2014 issued in favour of the complainant, Ext.A7 series (1) is the copy of the postal receipt of certificate of posts, Ext.A7 series (2) is the copy of the letter dated 17.4.2009, Ext.A7 series (3) is the copy of the letter dated 17.4.2009 issued to the opposite party. Ext.A8 is the notice issued from the Legal Service Authority, Alappuzha, Ext.A9 is the copy of the pre-litigation petition and Ext.A10 series (3Nos.) are the CIBIL consumer credit information reports. The second opposite party was examined as RW1 and the documents produced marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the I.T. Certificate and Ext.B2 is the copy of the cheque of Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. which is subject to objection.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that complainant had applied for a car loan and after considering the application, opposite party had sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.1 lakh. The bank had undertaken to perform the services by providing facilities in connection with the financing. Complainant approached the bank for hiring its service for a consideration in the nature of interest. Therefore complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Act, having hired the services of the bank in connection with financing for a consideration.
6. Point No.2:- According to the complainant he entrusted 36 cheques of his account in Lord Krishna Bank with the opposite party for repaying the installments of the loan amount. It is an admitted fact that cheque No.264991 was bounced and the cash receipt of Rs.3621/- including EMI amount and cheque bouncing charge was received on 17.8.2006. According to the opposite party complainant had defaulted the 12th installment by bouncing the cheque No.264992 dated 1.9.2006 for an amount of Rs.3,396/- and the same became due. On verifying Ext.A2, we came to see that on 3.8.2006 after presenting the cheque No.264991, the opposite party presented cheque No.264993 only on 20.11.2006 as the next installment due with the Lord Krishna Bank, Alappuzha. So it is clear that cheque No. 264992 the cheque for the alleged due amount was not presented with the Lord Krishna Bank, Alappzuha. At the same time it is an admitted fact that complainant had entrusted 36 cheques with the opposite party bank. Opposite party bank did not produce any evidence relating to the dishonour of cheque No. 264992 issued by the complainant on the ground of insufficient fund in his account. The cheque in question was not returned to the complainant nor information in writing given in time that it was dishonoured. Hence the contention of the opposite party that the complainant had defaulted 12th installment by bouncing the cheque No.264992 dated 1.9.2006 for an amount of Rs.3,396/- is not proved. Moreover Ext.A8 series 1, 2, and 3 show that the complainant had requested the opposite party to give details about the cheque which was bounced, but no reply was sent by the opposite party. According to the complainant since the period of 36 installments expired, he is entitled to obtain an NOC from the opposite party. According to the opposite party the complainant had paid only 35 installments out of the 36 installments and hence he is not entitled to get NOC. Since there is no document produced by the opposite party to prove that complainant had committed default by bouncing the cheque No. 264992, we are of opinion that opposite party committed deficiency in service by not satisfying the requirement of returning the bouncing cheque to the complainant. According to the complainant opposite party had filed PLP before the Legal Service Authority alleging false allegations against the complainant. Moreover, while he was going to apply a financial loan from a bank, he came to know that his name is included in CIBIL for Rs.3396/-. Ext.A10 series evidence the same. As long as the complainant entrusted the 36 cheques with the opposite party, he was under the belief that the opposite party will encash the cheques in due time and will close the loan within the stipulated period. In the instant case, opposite party failed to encash the cheque N. 264992 and also failed to inform the complainant about it. Without doing the duties entrusted with them, they put the name of the complainant in CIBIL and it will surely affect his reputation in the public and that is to be compensated by the opposite party. At the same time, we are of opinion that complainant is bound to remit the 12th installment to the opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows:-
- The complainant is directed to remit the 12th installment amount of Rs.3396/- to the opposite party.
- On receipt of the said installment amount of Rs.3396/-, the opposite party shall given N.O.C. to the complainant and also remove the name of the complainant from CIBIL within 14 days.
- The opposite party is directed to give Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony that caused to the complainant by the act of the opposite party.
- The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings.
- The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 30th day of November, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Kora Mathew (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the RC book of vehicle No. KL04 P 7734
Ext.A2 - original savings account pass book of Lord Krishna Bank
Ext.A3 - Payment receipt dated 14.8.2006
Ext.A4 - Letter dated 23.12.2008 issued by ICICI Bank to the complainant
Ext.A5 - Copy of the page No.9 of the pass book
Ext.A6 - Copy of the sales contract dated 15.10.2014 issued in favour of the complainant
Ext.A7 series (1)- Copy of the postal receipt of certificate of post
Ext.A7 series (2)- Copy of the letter dated 17.4.2009
Ext.A7 series (3)- Copy of the letter dated 17.4.2009 issued to the opposite party.
Ext.A8 - Notice issued from the Legal Service Authority, Alappuzha
Ext.A9 - Copy of the pre-litigation petition
Ext.A10 series - CIBIL consumer credit information reports (3 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Vibin. M.R. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - I.T. Certificate
Ext.B2 - Copy of the cheque of Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. which is subject to objection
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
