Kerala

Idukki

CC/78/2021

Shajan John - Complainant(s)

Versus

Icici bank - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :28.6.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   6^th    day of  July,   2023

Present :                                                                        

                   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                  PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.78/2021

     Between

Complainant                                       :        Shajan John, S/o. Mani John,

                                                                    Urumbil House,

Neyyasseri P.O.,

                                                                   Near St. Sebastian’s Church,

                                                                   Karimannoor,

Thodupuzha – 685 581.

                   (By Adv: Biju R. Naduviledathu)

        And

Opposite Party                                    :       ICICI Bank,

                                                                   Thodupuzha Branch,       

Near Municipal Private Bus Stand,

                                                                   Thodupuzha – 685 584.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

 

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Case of the complainant is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          Complainant is a resident of Karimannoor Village in Thodupuzha Taluk.  Opposite party is Thodupuzha branch of ICICI bank.  On 30.5.2019, complainant had taken a vehicle loan of Rs.4 lakhs after giving security of his Maruti Swift DZire car bearing Reg. No.KL-17M-199.  Loan amount was to be repaid in 48 equated monthly instalments beginning from 30.6.2019 onwards.  Interest rate was 16% per annum.  Complainant was regularly remitting loan instalments at the rate of Rs.10,000/-.  Amount were being paid directly by complainant and sometimes these were collected by the collection agent of opposite party.  Owing to Covid 19 pandemic, there was default in remittance of monthly instalments.  This was not owing to any latches from the side of complainant.  Altogether payment of 9 monthly instalments is in arrears.  Complainant is prepared to pay the arrears.  However, amounts paid by complainant

earlier were not duly accounted for, by opposite party.  Despite repeated requests, opposite party has not provided the complainant with a copy of bank statement.  While so, some persons claiming to be members of recovery wing of opposite party had repeatedly contacted complainant over phone and asked him to pay Rs.4,50,000/- for clearing the loan.  In case of his failure to do so, they had threatened to take possession of the car.  Intention is to make unlawful gains by forcing complainant to pay more amount than what is due towards loan.  After receiving threatening phone call on 20.6.2021, complainant had directly gone to the office of opposite party and had declared his intention to clear the arrears.  However, opposite party had driven away the complainant after insulting and   humiliating  him with the sole intention of taking possession of the vehicle.  The car, which is the subject matter here, has a market value of Rs.7 lakhs presently.  Complainant therefore prays for an injunction order against opposite party from taking forceable possession of the vehicle and a direction against them to receive instalment arrears due from complainant.  He also prays for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards unfair trade practice adopted by opposite party, compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony so caused and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/. 

 

          2. Opposite party had appeared and filed a written version, disputing the complainant’s claim.  Case of opposite party is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          Opposite party contends that complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  It lacks bonafides.  Complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act.  Opposite party is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and licensed as a bank under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949.  Opposite party is functioning as per the guidelines and regulations of Reserve Bank of India.  Tenure of repayment so mentioned in the complaint is incorrect.  Complainant had approached opposite party for an auto loan.  His application was considered and loan of Rs.4 lakhs was granted.  Loan amount was disbursed on 30.5.2019 upon execution of loan agreement by complainant.  Loan amount was to be repaid in 71 equated monthly instalments amounting to Rs.9770/- each.  Loan tenure was from 10.7.2019 till 10.4.2025.  Repayment schedule of the loan was duly communicated to the complainant when the loan was disbursed.  Complainant was a chronic defaulter.  He had defaulted payment of the very first instalment itself and continued committing default subsequently.  Cheque given towards payment of first monthly instalment dues had bounced.  As on 20.10.2021, an amount of Rs.4,83,211/- is outstanding towards the loan.  Opposite party submits that no unfair methods were adopted by it.  All payment made by complainant have been duly accounted for.  There was no request from complainant for copy of account statement.  Were there to be one, opposite party would have certainly given a copy of account statement to complainant.  Opposite party has not resorted to harsh recovery methods.  Officials of opposite party and its representatives are sensitized / trained to follow the code of conduct for collection and recovery in accordance with guidelines of RBI / IBA / BCSBI.  Complainant had never approached opposite party for settling loan amount.  Opposite party had on the other hand intimated the complainant repeatedly regarding his delinquency in repayment. Complainant was reluctant to approach opposite party for a settlement or for regularizing the outstanding dues.  As per statutory process, opposite party had issued loan recall notice to complainant on 26.2.2021 and another notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, on 5.8.2021.  Opposite party bank has only resorted to legal procedure in accordance with law for recovering outstanding loan dues.  It has not committed any latches in service or had adopted unfair trade practice.  Opposite party bank is functioning in accordance with law and regulations laid down by RBI and other authorities.  Complainant is bound to pay back the loan amount with interest as agreed by him.  Present complaint is only an experimental one to make unlawful gains.  Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  Hence complaint is to be dismissed with costs and compensatory costs.

 

          3.  Case was then posted for steps and thereafter for evidence repeatedly.  Though several opportunities were availed, complainant had not appeared or given evidence.  As there was no evidence from the side of complainant, counsel for opposite party had submitted that opposite party bank is also not intending to give evidence.  Hence evidence was closed.  As there was no representation for complainant, we have heard the counsel appearing for opposite party.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite party ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint ?

3)  Final order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

          Though opposite party has raised a contention that the case is not maintainable, on the premises that there is no consumer - service provider relationship between itself and complainant, as per the Act.  Banking services / facilities are also included in the definition of the term ‘service’ provided in the Act.  Allegations are that unfair trade practice was adopted by opposite party.  It is contended that amount paid by complainant were not being duly accounted for,  that copy of bank statement was not provided upon request and further that opposite party is trying to take forceable possession of the car.  These are all instances of flaws in  service which is to be rendered by the bank to its customers.  Any latches in providing proper service would certainly amount to deficiency in service from the side of opposite party and would attract the jurisdiction of this Commission.  Therefore we find that the complaint is maintainable.

 

          In so far as proof of the aforesaid allegations are concerned, there is absolutely nothing from the side of complainant to prove these aspects.  That being so, we find that the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice remain unproved.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for on these premises.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 

 

5.  Point No.3 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  Parties to take back extra copies, without delay. 

 

          Pronounced by this commission on this the   6^th   day of  July, 2023

 

 

                                                                                                       Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT                                   Sd/-

           SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                             Sd/-

          SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

Appendix : Nil.

 

 

                                                                                      Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

 

                                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR