Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII,      5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                                      Complaint Case No.370/18.10.2016

Shri Shyam Lal s/o Late Shri Samanta Singh

R/o Flat No.14, Block No. 13, Dev Nagar,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi                                                       …Complainant

                                                Versus

OP1-ICICI Bank Ltd.

Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

(through its Chief Manager)                                                  

OP2- ICICI Bank Ltd.

(through its GM/MD/AS/Director)

ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai-400051                                                                  ...Opposite Party

                                                                                    Date of filing:            18.10.2016

Coram:                                                                       Date of Order:            01.02.2024

Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

Ms. Shahina, Member -Female

                                                       ORDER

Inder Jeet Singh , President

1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –The complainant took personal loan from the OP/ Bank and amount was being returned by EMIs, however, complete amount was not returned. Thence, complainant received notice from OP, it result into full and final settlement for lump sum amount of Rs. 47,404/-, out of which Rs. 35,000/- was paid on one occasion, Rs. 7000/- was paid on second occasion and because of transfer posting of complainant out of Delhi, he could not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 5,404/-. However, later-on it was collected from complainant by  agent of OP with an assurance to provide 'no due certificate'. The OP failed to do it and that is why the present complaint under of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for directions to OP to issue 'no due certificate' in respect of clearance of loan amount besides compensation of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of mental agony, harassment, deficiency of services, cost of Rs. 22,000/- and other appropriate relief.

1.2. The complaint is opposed by the OPs that the complaint is barred by limitation, it is without cause of action, the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (briefly the Commission) lacks jurisdiction as the jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court. The complainant is not a consumer. Moreover, it is complainant, who failed to comply the settlement for want of paying the settled amount within agreed payment schedule and for want of compliance of that settlement, the settlement became null and void. Consequently, amount accrued of Rs. 1,60,716.75p is recoverable from the complainant.

2.1. (Case of complainant) –In the month of June, 2017 the complainant took personal loan from OP1 vide loan account no. LPDEL00010366329 and he was paying EMI regularly, except a few installments. The complainant received notice dated 14.02.2011 from OP to pay balance amount of Rs.1,32,993/-. The complainant contacted the OP1 and on 13.04.2011 the matter was settled for lump sum amount of Rs. 47,404/- as full and final amount, out of which Rs. 35,000/- was deposited with the OPs on 31.03.2011 and Rs. 7,000/- on 21.04.2011 but balance of Rs. 5,404/- could not be deposited by the complainant as he was transferred out of Delhi. However, OPs' agent namely Vinod came on 29.03.2015 and asked and collected amount of Rs. 7,000/- as the matter was settled finally and accordingly the amount was given to him. The complainant was assured for 'no due certificate' but it was not issued but when he went to the OP, he was asked to pay Rs. 24,000/-. It is unfair trade practice and cheating. Moreover, the complainant CIBIL status has also been diminished. The complainant suffered harassment, mental agony and reputation, for which he is entitled for compensation.

2.2. The complainant also issued legal notice dated 26.05.2016 through his counsel by claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for causing him harassment etc but there was no compliance.

            The complaint is accompanied with copy of OP’s notice, settlement letter, payment slips (of three amounts already mentioned) and copy of complainant’s legal notice with postal receipt and delivery proof.

3.1 (Case of OP)-The complaint was filed against ICICI Bank Ltd. by impleading Chief Manager, Jhandewalan as OP1 and its Director at address of Mumbai. However, there is a common written statement by the OPs,  the complaint is opposed on legal issues (which have already been mentioned in paragraph 1.2 above) as well as on facts. [the written statement is under the signature with name Sh. Jarrar Rizvi, power attorney holder].

3.2.  Initially, the complainant was dispersed loan of Rs. 98,000/- and it was repayable by way of 36 EMI of Rs. 3,793/- each but complainant was irregular in the payment of EMIs. On 14.02.2011 the complainant was called by notice to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,32,393/- and it result into the settlement but it was not complied by payment schedule by the complainant.

There was settlement dated 13.04.2011 but in case of default by the complainant, the settlement should be null and void. It is admitted case of complainant that he paid Rs. 35,000/- and then Rs. 7,000/- against total amount of Rs. 47,404/- and for want of payment of balance amount, the settlement was null and void.

3.3. The payment of Rs. 7,000/- on 29.03.2015 was not as full and final payment but the receipt issued itself mentions that it was 'not valid as full and final letter' or as 'as no due certificate'. The OP’s agent was Mr. Vipin Kumar and not Mr. Vinod as stated by complainant. Since there was outstanding loan amount along with all penalty charges and interest levied on the amount, the total outstanding amount  is Rs. 1,60,716/- as on 26.10.2017. The complainant is not entitled for any claim and amount. The written statement is accompanied with Annexure-A/statement of account, Annexure-B/prepayment of personal loan account, Annexure-C/copy of Resolution for authority.

3.4. It is relevant to mention that initially the OPs failed to appear and they were proceeded ex-parte. However, the OP preferred RP no. 33/2017 before Hon’ble State Commission and the revision petition was allowed on conditional order of cost of Rs. 2,000/-  while setting aside ex-parte order. Thence, the OPs filed their reply, however, till then the complainant had already filed affidavit of ex-parte evidence.

 4.1. (Evidence)- Complainant filed his affidavit of evidence, which is on the lines of complaint with documents. Further, this affidavit was in fact during as ex-parte evidence stage but subsequently after reply of the OPs, the complainant adopted the earlier affidavit of evidence. Thus, it is the affidavit of evidence.

4.2. OPs led evidence of Sh. Jarrar Rizvi, Manager-Legal (who is author of the written statement) by filing his affidavit coupled with documents, which is replica of the written statement.

4.3  OPs further led evidence by filing affidavit of Ms. Akriti Mishra, Manager-Legal and it is on the pattern of affidavit of Sh. Jarrar Rizvi, however, affidavit of this witness was proposed/annexed with the additional document, but request for filing additional document was declined by separate reasoned order dated 29.05.2023. Therefore, the second affidavit of evidence is being considered by exclusion of that additional document, additional document cannot be read part of evidence.

5.1 (Final hearing)-  The complainant and the OPs filed their written arguments, which are blend of their pleadings and evidence. In fact, the case as set up in the pleading and evidence has been repeated in the written arguments.

5.2. The parties were given opportunity to make oral submissions, however, there was no oral submission on behalf of complainant for want of appearance but Sh. Parth Kaushik, Advocate, presented the oral submission as an associate  of Sh. Hemant Gupta, Advocate for OP.

            During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for OP was shown signatures from record on the written statement as well as on the affidavit of evidence to confirm whether the same are signatures of one and same person namely Sh. Jarrar Rizvi,  [since they appearing to be in variance], however, Ld. Counsel they are appearing to be by name  Jarrar and Jarrar Rizvi.  

6.1 (Findings)- The cases of both the parties are considered,  keeping in view the material available on record besides the contentions raised in the arguments. All of them are taken one by one.  

6.2. The OPs had taken the objection that complainant is not 'a consumer' as well as the matter could be adjudicated by the civil court. However, on the face of record, this objection has been taken by the OPs just for the sake of objections as under the definition of services u/s 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the banking services are covered within the purview of Act 1986 and 'customer/complainant' availing services of  OP/Bank is 'a consumer'; the complainant is a consumer. 

             There is also no plausible ground shown as to how the matter could be adjudicated by the civil court and not be this Commission, therefore, it is held that there is no question to be determined by the civil court exclusively. Hence, it is held that this Commission is competent to determine the issue and

6.3. The other issue raised is  'whether the complaint is barred by time?'. This complaint was filed on 18.10.2016 and the last payment received by the OPs through its agent was 29.03.2015 but 'no due certificate' was not issued after receipt of payment of that amount. Therefore, the cause of action had arisen on 29.03.2015, when the amount was collected but no due certificate requested was not issued to the complainant, the complaint dated 18.10.2016 is within two years period prescribed by the Act 1986. The complaint is within time.

7.1  Now the remaining consumer dispute pertains to 'whether the complainant had paid the entire amount as per settlement or the settlement became null and void,  subsequently for want of delayed payment?

            The complainant has set-up the case that there was amicable settlement and he had also paid substantial amount of settlement but meager amount of Rs. 5,404/- could not have been deposited since he was posted out of Delhi. But the OPs have strong reservation that branch of OPs are located throughout and balance amount could have been deposited in any of the branches of the OPs. There was non-compliance of the settlement and amount keep on accruing in the form of interest, penalties etc, which is shown in the statement of account filed.

7.2  It needs to look at the documentary record especially settlement letter. The settlement arrived between the parties is not disputed, it is of 13.04.2011 for a lump sum amount of Rs. 47,404/-, out of  which amount of Rs. 35,000/- was to be deposited as first installment on 31.03.2011 and for remaining amount as second installment on 23.04.2011. The complainant has also proved receipt/pay in slips that an amount of Rs. 35,000/- was deposited on 31.03.2011 and another amount of Rs. 7,000/- on 21.04.2011 by way of cash deposits.

            Firstly, letter of settlement is of 13.04.2011 but  amount was already deposited on 31.03.2011 because of settlement. As per this settlement, the due dates were mentioned, however, there is stipulation that in case of default either by dishonour of cheque issued or otherwise, the settlement offer shall stand null and void and all the concession granted shall also stand withdrawn. The letter does not depict as to what was the concession granted  or to be withdrawn. Secondly, the OPs' agent had collected an amount of Rs. 7,000/- on 29.03.2015 and a receipt was issued to this effect by OPs. This receipt is in standard format  by mentioning that it is valid upto 31.03.2015,  without any specification in what context the validity date is mentioned. It is also mentioned in colour red that receipt is not 'valid as a full and final settlement letter' or as a 'no due certificate'. Immediately, below this remark,  there is a table showing various heads  under which payment was received/made/recorded. There is tick mark (√ ) against “foreclosure” for amount received from complainant. Otherwise, between last payment of Rs.7,000/- on 21.04.2011 against receipt till further collection/payment of Rs. 7,000/- on 29.03.2015,  there was no correspondence or any letter or demand by the OP from the complainant. Therefore, on the basis of this receipt dated 29.03.2015, the amount was received as a foreclosure by OP/Bank from the complainant. Therefore, it was pursuant to the settlement and it stand established from the circumstances that OPs received the amount of Rs. 7,000/- in lieu of balance settled amount to foreclose the account.

8.1 In view of the conclusion drawn in paragraph no.7 above, the complainant has succeeded to establish his complaint against OPs. It is but natural that for want of no due certificate and down ranking of CIBIL score matters a lot for economic relations and the present complainant suffered for it from OPs. But, there is also admitted laxity on the part of complainant that after settlement he had paid the substantial amount but failed to pay the remaining amount at material time, which OPs collected subsequently through its agent. However, the OPs had failed to issue 'no due certificate' despite payment of remaining amount to the OPs.  

8.2. The complainant deserves directions against OPs to issue ‘No Due Certificate' and 'to correct the CIBI score record of complainant' and to inform the complainant about  certificate and correction of such CIBIL record,  apart from issuing appropriate letter to this effect, in favour of complainant.

8.3. The complainant sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against OPs towards mental agony, harassment, deficiency of services. Considering all the aspects involved on the part of the complainant and the OPs, it does not make out case for compensation, thus complainant’s request for compensation is declined. The complainant also claims costs of Rs. 22,000/ and other relief, however, on the basis of aforementioned reasons, the request for cost is also declined.

9.1. Accordingly, this complaint is disposed off in favour of complainant against OPs and OPs are directed to (i) issue 'no dues certificate' for clearance of loan amount in respect of loan amount of account no. LPDEL00010366329 and (ii) 'to correct the CIBIL score record of complainant' as nothing is outstanding against the complainant and (iii) also inform the complainant about correction of such CIBIL record apart from issuing appropriate letter to this effect, in favour of complainant.

9.2.  The OPs are directed to comply above orders/directions in its letter and spirit within 45 days of this order. In case the OPs do not comply with this Order, partly or otherwise, then the complainant will be at liberty to institute appropriate motion under the law.

10.  Announced on this Ist day of February 2024 [माघ 12, साका 1945].

11. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.