Delhi

East Delhi

cc/237/2013

SHRI BRAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  237/13

 

Shri Braham Singh (Deceased)

Through LR

Shri Sanjeev Kumar,

S/o Late Shri Braham Singh

R/o C-6/12, Gali No. 6

C Block, Kabir Nagar

Delhi – 110 094                                                           ….Complainant

Vs.

1. ICICI Bank Ltd.

ICICI towers, Bandra Kurla Complex

Mumbai – 400 50

 

2. ICICI Bank Ltd.

Vidicon Tower, Jhandewalan Ext.

New Delhi – 110 055

 

3. ICICI Bank Ltd.

Preet Vihar Community Centre

Delhi – 110 092                                                                …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 19.03.2013

Judgement Reserved on : 22.01.2018

Judgement Passed on: 23.01.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Braham Singh (Deceased) against ICICI Bank (OPs), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant got financed an Esteem Saloon Car vide registration no. DL-9C-D-7608 dated 14.06.2004 with OP and paid the installments regularly. 

            It was stated that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- in addition to the amount paid in installments, but OP took away the vehicle illegally and forcibly. 

            The complainant gave a legal notice dated 12.10.2012 (wrongly mentioned as 10.12.2012), reply of which was received vide reference no. 101912/6560495 dated 22.10.2012. 

            It was also stated that OP filed a complaint case no. 1911/06 in Civil Court which was dismissed on merit.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay the price of the car and damages amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant. 

3.         In reply, respondent have taken various pleas such as the complaint was beyond the limitation period; the cheques issued by the complainant got dishonoured from the very first EMI; there was no payment for 05 of the EMIs despite repeated requests; at the time of repossession, an outstanding amount of Rs. 4,07,610/- was due and the vehicle was sold in auction at a loss of Rs. 1,28,172/-. The said sale was intimated to the complainant.   The complainant filed the case to avoid his legal liability for the payment of Rs. 1,28,172/-.  Other facts have also been denied.  

4.         In support of its complaint, Shri Sanjeev Kumar, son of the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.

            In defence, OP have examined Shri Santosh Singh, Manager (Legal), who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the Written Statements. 

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that the complaint was beyond the period of limitation as the incident was of 15.02.2005, whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 2012.  Further, he has argued that the complainant was at fault as he did not clear the outstanding amount and the vehicle was repossessed and auctioned and they suffered a loss. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that the complaint was not time barred as the legal notice was issued on 12.10.2012.  He has further argued that the complainant have cleared the payment and there was no outstanding amount as such.  The complainant got the vehicle financed in the year 2004 and he has not put on record as and when he has paid the amount. 

            On the contrary, OP have stated in their affidavit that the vehicle was repossessed in the month of February, 2005 and an amount of                Rs. 4,07,610/- was outstanding.  The same was auctioned and they suffered a loss of Rs. 1,28,172/-.  The fact that the vehicle was repossessed on 15.02.2005, the cause of action for filing the complaint have arisen on the very day itself.  The complainant have filed the complaint in the year 2012 i.e. after a period of about 7 years.  That being so, the complaint was beyond the period of limitation; legal notice issued by the complainant in the year 2012 will not get the period extended.  Thus, the complaint on this score was not maintainable.  That being so, the complaint of the complainant fails, which deserve its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President