ICICIbank V/S mookambika enterprises - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/275

mookambika enterprises - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICIbank - Opp.Party(s)

venkateshan

15 Apr 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/275

mookambika enterprises						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
ICICIbank						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.01.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 15th APRIL 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 275/2009 COMPLAINANT M/s. Mookambika Enterprises, No. 595, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Prakashnagar, Bangalore 560 021. Represented by its Partner Sri. Adikeshavalu Reddy, S/o. Late. N. Dasaradharama Reddy, Aged about 54 years. Advocate (K.S. Venkataramana) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 India. 2. ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, No.1, Commissiariat Road, Bangalore 560 025. Advocate (Jai. M. Patil) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.15,48,100/- and return all original documents and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is a firm doing its business in agricultural products approached OP.2 in the year 2005 for credit facility. OP agreed to extend helping hand and a credit agreement came to be executed on 24.06.2005 for a term of one year. In order to have the said facility complainant was directed to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- plus Rs.1,00,000/-, complainant complied the same on 05.01.2006 and 29.01.2005. He has also paid Rs.30,000/- on 13.03.2006. Complainant was expecting the commission with regard to the business carried that too to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- for the relevant period 2005-06. Somehow OP failed to credit the said commission to his account. At the time of availment of the said credit facility complainant has produced good number of documents. As the complainant felt that the transaction is not that favourable to them OP sent a renewal letter dated 11.05.2006. Complainant informed OP that they are not interested to renew the said agreement, then sought for the return of the original documents and the amount deposited as well as the commission accrued, all their efforts went in futile. Complainant even got issued the legal notice on 21.10.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant availed the said credit facility under certain scheme floated by the OP with regard to retail warehousing. Upon receipt of the said goods receipt stored at the ware house and a lien marked in favour of the OPs used to release the amount. Complainant is bound by Management and Collection Agency Agreement (M&C). Complainant was to locate the prospective borrower for the said loan facility, store the goods as per the procedure in the warehouse and that warehouse receipt is to be pledged to the OP. Complainant has violated the said terms and conditions of the agreement in collusion with the so called borrowers. Without the notice of the OP they removed the stock from the warehouse. On thorough enquiry OP noticed missing of the said stock. As the OP felt there is a violation of clause 21, 22, 23, 26 to 29 of M & C agreement, they were forced to ask the complainant to abide by the said agreement. In order to avoid the said liability and responsibility, complainant has come up with this false complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the credit facility from the OP and entered into an M & C agreement on 24.06.2005. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement complainant is required to deposit Rs.9,00,000/- and also to pay Rs.30,000/- for the other procedural aspect. Now the grievance of the complainant is that even though he deposited all the title deeds, relevant documents as required and also made payment, OP who is required to credit the commission accrued by the complainant for the year 2005-06, failed to do so. According to the complainant the said commission comes to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. For this claim basically there is no proof. Of course complainant enjoyed the said credit facility for one year, thereafter OP intended to renew the said agreement by addressing a letter dated 11.05.2006, somehow complainant has not shown the interest to renew the said agreement. Then complainant requested the OP to refund whatever the deposits they have made including the so called commission earned and to return the documents produced. There was no response. Hence he got issued the legal notice on 21.10.2008. The copy of the correspondence and legal notice are produced. When there was no response from the OP complainant felt the deficiency in service. 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that it has started a scheme with respect to retail warehousing receipt finance for the farmers to enable the farmers to avail a loan against their goods stocked. Upon the receipt of the sale receipts of the goods stored at the warehouse lien is marked in favour of the OP. OP would release the said lien on the products sold by the farmers when it receives the consideration. The fact that complainant is bound by M&C agreement is established. It is further contended by the OP as per the said agreement complainant was to locate the prospective borrower for the said loan, store the goods as per the procedure in the warehouse and the warehouse receipts were to be pledged to the OP, against which a finance will be extended to the borrower through OP. It was also agreed that the complainant would be jointly and severally liable to pay the dues in default committed by the borrower. 8. It is further contended by the OP that complainant committed a breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement. An allegation is made against the complainant that in collusion with a borrowers they have removed all the stock from the warehouse without the knowledge of the OP and encashed the same. In addition to that complainant failed to cooperate the OP in finding out how the said stock was missing and what happened to the said stock entrusted to. This specific defence set out by the OP is not denied by the complainant. When that is so, on the face of it there appears to be violation of clauses like 21 to 23 and 26 to 29 by the complainant. When the complainant is the defaulter, he cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. 9. On the plain reading of the complaint and the allegations made therein, it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. In our view complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. We have also taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the complex question of law it entailed, it would require volumeness evidence for its disposal, which is not possible for this Forum to go into all the details in its summary jurisdiction. If the complainant is so advised, he can very well file a Civil Suit to redress his grievance if any. With these observations we find complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 15th day of April 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.01.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 15th APRIL 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 275/2009 COMPLAINANT M/s. Mookambika Enterprises, No. 595, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Prakashnagar, Bangalore 560 021. Represented by its Partner Sri. Adikeshavalu Reddy, S/o. Late. N. Dasaradharama Reddy, Aged about 54 years. Advocate (K.S. Venkataramana) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 India. 2. ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, No.1, Commissiariat Road, Bangalore 560 025. Advocate (Jai. M. Patil) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.15,48,100/- and return all original documents and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is a firm doing its business in agricultural products approached OP.2 in the year 2005 for credit facility. OP agreed to extend helping hand and a credit agreement came to be executed on 24.06.2005 for a term of one year. In order to have the said facility complainant was directed to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- plus Rs.1,00,000/-, complainant complied the same on 05.01.2006 and 29.01.2005. He has also paid Rs.30,000/- on 13.03.2006. Complainant was expecting the commission with regard to the business carried that too to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- for the relevant period 2005-06. Somehow OP failed to credit the said commission to his account. At the time of availment of the said credit facility complainant has produced good number of documents. As the complainant felt that the transaction is not that favourable to them OP sent a renewal letter dated 11.05.2006. Complainant informed OP that they are not interested to renew the said agreement, then sought for the return of the original documents and the amount deposited as well as the commission accrued, all their efforts went in futile. Complainant even got issued the legal notice on 21.10.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant availed the said credit facility under certain scheme floated by the OP with regard to retail warehousing. Upon receipt of the said goods receipt stored at the ware house and a lien marked in favour of the OPs used to release the amount. Complainant is bound by Management and Collection Agency Agreement (M&C). Complainant was to locate the prospective borrower for the said loan facility, store the goods as per the procedure in the warehouse and that warehouse receipt is to be pledged to the OP. Complainant has violated the said terms and conditions of the agreement in collusion with the so called borrowers. Without the notice of the OP they removed the stock from the warehouse. On thorough enquiry OP noticed missing of the said stock. As the OP felt there is a violation of clause 21, 22, 23, 26 to 29 of M & C agreement, they were forced to ask the complainant to abide by the said agreement. In order to avoid the said liability and responsibility, complainant has come up with this false complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the credit facility from the OP and entered into an M & C agreement on 24.06.2005. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement complainant is required to deposit Rs.9,00,000/- and also to pay Rs.30,000/- for the other procedural aspect. Now the grievance of the complainant is that even though he deposited all the title deeds, relevant documents as required and also made payment, OP who is required to credit the commission accrued by the complainant for the year 2005-06, failed to do so. According to the complainant the said commission comes to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. For this claim basically there is no proof. Of course complainant enjoyed the said credit facility for one year, thereafter OP intended to renew the said agreement by addressing a letter dated 11.05.2006, somehow complainant has not shown the interest to renew the said agreement. Then complainant requested the OP to refund whatever the deposits they have made including the so called commission earned and to return the documents produced. There was no response. Hence he got issued the legal notice on 21.10.2008. The copy of the correspondence and legal notice are produced. When there was no response from the OP complainant felt the deficiency in service. 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that it has started a scheme with respect to retail warehousing receipt finance for the farmers to enable the farmers to avail a loan against their goods stocked. Upon the receipt of the sale receipts of the goods stored at the warehouse lien is marked in favour of the OP. OP would release the said lien on the products sold by the farmers when it receives the consideration. The fact that complainant is bound by M&C agreement is established. It is further contended by the OP as per the said agreement complainant was to locate the prospective borrower for the said loan, store the goods as per the procedure in the warehouse and the warehouse receipts were to be pledged to the OP, against which a finance will be extended to the borrower through OP. It was also agreed that the complainant would be jointly and severally liable to pay the dues in default committed by the borrower. 8. It is further contended by the OP that complainant committed a breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement. An allegation is made against the complainant that in collusion with a borrowers they have removed all the stock from the warehouse without the knowledge of the OP and encashed the same. In addition to that complainant failed to cooperate the OP in finding out how the said stock was missing and what happened to the said stock entrusted to. This specific defence set out by the OP is not denied by the complainant. When that is so, on the face of it there appears to be violation of clauses like 21 to 23 and 26 to 29 by the complainant. When the complainant is the defaulter, he cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. 9. On the plain reading of the complaint and the allegations made therein, it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. In our view complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. We have also taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the complex question of law it entailed, it would require volumeness evidence for its disposal, which is not possible for this Forum to go into all the details in its summary jurisdiction. If the complainant is so advised, he can very well file a Civil Suit to redress his grievance if any. With these observations we find complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 15th day of April 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.