Maharashtra

StateCommission

CC/11/168

MS PRIYANKA RAJENDRA PRASAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

SMT SANGITA SARGAR

24 Aug 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/168
 
1. MS PRIYANKA RAJENDRA PRASAD
C-6/3/2-3 SECTOR 6 CBD BELAPUR NAVI MUMBAI THROUGH ATTORNY RAJENDRA PRASAD
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ICICI BANK
414 SENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER PAREL WEST MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
2. ICICI BANK, OVERDRAFT PRODUCT & DEPOSITORY SERVICES
ICICI BANK LTD VASHI BRANCH SECTOR 17 VASHI NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Ms.Sharada Pinjari, Advocate for the complainant.
......for the Complainant
 
Mr.V. Mannadiar, Advocate for the opponents.
......for the Opp. Party
ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Heard Ms.Sharada Pinjari, Advocate for the complainant and Mr.V. Mannadiar, Advocate for the opponent.

 

2.       The consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of opponent/Bank for selling the shares without giving intimation and following proper procedure without knowledge of the complainant on 15/06/2007, 13/10/2008 and 10/12/2008.  The transactions pertained to an overdraft facility against the security obtained by the complainant for the purpose of making investments in shares and securities.

 

3.       Considering the purpose for which the bank services were availed i.e. overdraft facility for investment in shares and securities, it is, per se, a commercial purpose for which services of the Bank were availed.  Therefore, necessarily the complainant ought to have made out a case to claim that she is a consumer within a meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  There is no statement made referring to the explanation to said provision and under the circumstances, the complainant, since, availed services of the Bank for commercial purpose, is not a consumer and hence, the present complaint cannot be held as consumer dispute.

 

4.       Apart from that the grievance is about selling shares which perhaps held as security for overdraft facility availed.  It is the grievance that on 15/06/2007, 13/10/2008 and 10/12/2008 those securities were sold without taking any instructions from the complainant.  Therefore, cause of action, if any, for that purpose would arise on those respective dates of which the complainant had immediate knowledge.  She raised the objection therefor in communication witnessed by letter dated 01/11/2008.  Consumer complaint is not filed within two years therefrom.  As such the consumer complaint is also time-barred and cannot be entertained without any application for condonation of delay.

 

5.       For the reasons stated above, we find no reason to admit this complaint.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                   -: ORDER :-

1.       Complaint is not admitted and stands disposed off accordingly.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced

Dated 24th August 2012.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.