Haryana

StateCommission

A/120/2015

ICICI BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

JIENDER KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP PURI

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 120 of 2015

Date of Institution: 05.02.2015

Date of Decision : 25.11.2016

 

ICICI Bank Limited, SCO No. 174-175, IInd Floor, Sector-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-1600017, through its Branch Manager/Authorised signatory.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 Versus

 

1.      Jitender Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Kishan Sharma, resident of H.No. 1932, Sector-26, Panchkula

2.      Smt. Renu Sharma, w/o Sh. Sh. Jitender Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Kishan Sharma, resident of H.No. 1932, Sector-26, Panchkula .

                                     

                                      Respondents- Complainants

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. K.S. Arya, Advocate for the respondents.

                                                  

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          ICICI Bank Limited-opposite party is in appeal against the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (in short, ‘District Forum’) vide which the execution was ordered to be fully satisfied and the appellant was directed to reissue a fresh cheque in lieu of Cheque No.256464 for Rs.69,000/- dated 05.09.2014 as it has become a stale cheque.

2.      In brief Jitender Kumar filed complaint No.283 of 2009 with allegations of deficiency in service against the opposite party. It was allowed by District Forum vide order dated 10.08.2010 and the following relief was given:-

“(i) To recalculate the entire home loan account of the complainant as if it were deemed to be payable from the date of first repayment till its foreclosure on 08.06.2009 when the entire loan was repaid to OP No.3, keeping in mind that only floating interest @8.25%+025% as per PLR can be charged on the payments deposits by the complainant during the above mentioned period.

(ii)      After overhauling the loan account as per (i) if any amount is found excess deposited & charged by OP No.3 refund the same to the complainants with an interest @ 9% p.a. from date of foreclosure of loan account on 8/6/2009 till payment.

(iii)     To refund the foreclosure charges of Rs.16,927.00 taken from the complainants with an interest @9% p.a. from date of foreclosure of loan amount on 8/6/2009 till payment.

(iv)    To pay sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as lump sum compensation on account of harassment mental agony as well as costs of proceedings.

(v)     To deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- as exemplary costs for indulging unfair trade practices in the legal aid fund of this forum.”

This order has attained finality. Order not being complied with, complainant filed execution bearing EA No. 85 of 2010.

3.      District Forum asked both the parties to submit their calculations.

4.      In response thereto, parties filed calculations.

5.      District Forum after hearing both the parties accepted the calculations of complainant and held that a sum of Rs.1,02,962/- has been rightly calculated and paid by opposite party.  However, further directed that a cheque bearing No.256464 dated 05.09.2014 for Rs.69,000/- deposited by the opposite party has become time barred and directed to deposit fresh cheque in lieu of Cheque No.256464 and cheque for Rs.33,962/- was ordered to be handed over to the complainant-decree holder Jitender Kumar.

6.      Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, opposite party has come up in appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.      Learned Counsel again agitated that since the floating rates has to be applicable therefore, District Forum wrongly accepted the calculation and infact the amount paid was in excess and therefore, be got refunded.  We have perused the calculations. There does not seem to be illegality in the calculation submitted by the complainant.  The calculations submitted by complainant are in conformity with the order dated 10.08.2010. Therefore, the District Forum has righty directed the opposite party to issue fresh cheque accepting the calculation of the complainant.  Appeal is dismissed and the order passed by District Forum is upheld.

 

 

Announced 25.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President