Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

111/2010

m/s. Fascinating Letters,The Propreitor - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank,Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Siva Associates

13 Jul 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 22.01.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 13.07.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.111/2010

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2018

                                 

M/s. Facinating Letters,

Represented by its Proprietor

Mr. Saranath,

No.130, Apparswamy Koil Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                      

 

..Versus..

 

ICICI Bank,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Mylapore Branch,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. Siva Associates

Counsel for opposite party       :  M/s. S. Namasivayam & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to restore the overdue facility of Rs.4,00,000/- to his current Account No.60220504161 maintaining with the opposite party or in the alternative, directing the opposite party to return the processing fee along with the documents collected from the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite party with cost to the complainant.

1.     The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The complainant submits that he is a current a/c holder bearing No.602205041761 of the opposite party having the facility of over draft for Rs.2,00,000/- during the month of January 2007.  Since the complainant is prompt in payment of charges, the opposite party increased the over draft facility to the limit of Rs.4,00,000/- during the month of March 2008.  The complainant submits that eventhough the opposite party without intimation, deducted the service charges, processing fees etc, in the middle of March 2008, unilaterally cancelled the overdraft facility resulting loss to his livelihood business.  Further the complainant submits that in order to cancel the overdraft facility, the opposite party shall give due intimation with reasons.  Due letter and legal notice also sent by the complainant dated:08.04.2008 for which, the opposite party had not sent any reply.  Further the complainant submits that without any intimation, the opposite party cancelled the overdraft facility and bounced the cheque issued by the complainant.   The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.  Hence this complaint is filed.

 

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party is a banking company with enormous reputation.  It provides loan for different purposes and credit cards for interested persons.  Its policy of lending, prescription of interest, penal interest, surcharge and all other charges are determined on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.  The complainant signed an agreement for availing overdraft facilities of ICICI Bank subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement.  The opposite party states that the complainant is not a Consumer.  The complainant for the purpose of his business, availed overdraft facility and the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum.  Further the opposite party state that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of dues, service charges, processing fees etc.    Further the opposite party states that as per terms and conditions of sanctioning overdraft facility, the opposite party has every right to close or cancel the overdraft facility.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant entitled to restore the overdraft facility of the opposite party for Rs.4,00,000/- as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost?

5.     On point:-

The opposite party filed written arguments. The complainant has not filed any written arguments and has not turned up to advance to any oral arguments also.  Heard the opposite party Counsel.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   Admittedly, the complainant is a current a/c holder of the opposite party having the facility of over draft for Rs.2,00,000/-.  Since the complainant is prompt in payment of charges, the opposite party increased the over draft facility to the limit of Rs.4,00,000/- is also admitted.   The contention of the complainant is that eventhough the opposite party without intimation, deducted the service charges, processing fees etc all of a sudden, during the month of March 2008 unilaterally cancelled the overdraft facility caused great inconvenience and mental agony resulting loss to his livelihood business.  Further the contention of the complainant is that in order to cancel the overdraft facility the opposite party shall give due intimation with reasons.  Due letter and legal notice also sent by the complainant as per Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 for which, the opposite party had not sent any reply.  Further the contention of the complainant is that without any intimation, the opposite party cancelled the overdraft facility and bounced the cheque issued by the complainant arbitrarily as per Ex.A6 proves the deficiency in service.  The complainant is claiming the relief of restoration of overdraft facility with compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and cost.

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a Consumer.  The complainant for the purpose of his business, availed overdraft facility and the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum.  But it is apparently seen that the complainant is doing the business of manufacturing of name boards for his livelihood.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of dues, service charges, processing fees etc.  The opposite party filed Ex.B3 statement of accounts.  But nowhere in the statement specifically showed the cheque bounce and debit of cheque bounce charges.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that as per terms and conditions of sanctioning overdraft facility, the opposite party have every right to close or cancel the overdraft facility.   The learned Counsel for the opposite party cited the decision in:

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

Between

Mukesh Jain

• Versus –

V.K. Gupta & another

Held that

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14 – A person can seek no relief against the Bank under the Consumer Protection Act on the ground that the Bank had failed to advance further amount to him or had discontinued the overdraft or cash credit facility”.

But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that the opposite party cancelled the overdraft facility as per the terms and conditions.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result the complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of July 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	2005-2009	Copy of ration card of the complainant
Ex.A2	10.03.2008	Copy of letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A3	08.04.2008	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Advocate to the opposite party
Ex.A4	29.02.2008	Copy of statement of account of the complainant
Ex.A5	31.12.2006	Copy of statement of account of the complainant
Ex.A6	12.02.2010	Copy of statement of account by the HDFC Bank to the complainant
Ex.A7	10.02.2010	Copy of statement of account by the GE Money to the complainant
Ex.A8	31.03.2008	Copy of statement of account of the complainant
Ex.A9	31.12.2007	Copy of statement of account of the complainant

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	17.01.2011	Copy of Power of Attorney
Ex.B2		Copy of terms and conditions for overdraft facility
Ex.B3	18.01.2009	Statement of accounts of the complainant for the period from 19.01.2008 to 18.01.2009

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                              PRESIDENT