In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.363/2009.
1) Mr. Lalu Singha,
3A, Brojo Kumar Seth Lane, 1st Floor,
P.S. Jorabagan, Kolkata-6. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Manger (Personal Loan Department),
ICICI Bank Ltd.
2, Upper Wood Street, Bachawat House,
Kolkata-20, P.S. Bhawanipore. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 35 Dated 28-11-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant took a personal loan of Rs.30,000/- bearing loan account no. LICAL-00007227584 on 23.6.06, but the complainant received a cheque amounting to Rs.28,316/- on 26.6.06. O.p. took six EMI cheques @ Rs.1587/- from 5.8.06 to 5.1.07 totalling a sum of Rs.9522/-. In the month of January 2007 o.p. influenced the complainant to accept a top up loan and the complainant was compelled to take top up loan amounting to Rs.41,037/- on 20.1.07, being the loan account no. LICAL-00009262183. But the complainant received a cheque a sum of Rs.12,104/- on 20.1.07. Again the o.p. took six EMI cheques @ Rs.2096/- totaling a sum of Rs.12,576/-. After the encashment of six EMI cheques o.p. again influenced the complainant to accept a second top up loan for a sum of Rs.64,000/-. But the complainant received a sum of Rs.21,054 on 14.8.07. So the complainant received Rs.61,474/- from o.p. Complainant has submitted that out of Rs.61,474/- complainant had paid Rs.29,839/- (para 11 of the complaint). O.p. has demanded Rs.78,601.73 which is illegal, arbitrary and does not arrive at all. Complainant requested the o.p. several times to explain how the amount became Rs.78,601.73 and why the o.p. had charged higher rate of interest @ 48.2%. But instead of clarification o.p. and his antisocial recovery agents are continuously threatening the complainant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the act of o.p. the complainant forwarded a legal notice on 20.3.08 through his ld. advocate which was refused by o.p. It is also submitted by complainant that during the span of time he has suffered irreparable loss and injury for which o.p. is liable. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia that first loan would be payable by complainant by 36 EMIs @ Rs.,1587/- for loan account no. LICAL 00007227584. The first of such installment would be payable on 5.8.06 and the last EMI would be payable on 5.7.09. Subsequently in January 2007 the complainant approached the o.p. for second loan. O.p. granted a loan of Rs.41,037/- on terms and conditions contained in the written agreement under loan account no. LICAL 00009262183. After obtaining second top up loan complainant paid of the first loan; so an amount of Rs.12,104/- was disbursed to the complainant. Further in August 2007 complainant approached the o.p. for third top up loan and accordingly o.p. granted a loan of Rs.64,000/- to the complainant on terms and conditions contained in the written agreement under loan account no. LIKOW 00011127914. The said third loan would be repayable by the complainant in 36 EMIs @ Rs.2717/-. Accordingly, o.p. had closed the first and second loan i.e. LICAL 000 7227584 and LICAL 00009262183 respectively. Further more o.p. had demanded Rs.1,20,394/- as on 5.8.10 from the complainant. Therefore, o.p. has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. Complainant was absent since 2.4.13. So at the time of final hearing also he was absent though several dates were given. So the matter is decided on merit. It is admitted fact that in August 2007 complainant took a loan of Rs.30,000/- which would be repayable by the complainant in 36 EMIs @ Rs.1587/-. Subsequently in January 2007 complainant a top up loan of Rs.41,037/- and in August 2007 complainant took a loan of Rs.64,000/-. Out of Rs.41,037/- (second loan) complainant received Rs.12,104/- as the due amount arising out of the first loan. Out of Rs.64,000/- (third loan) complainant received Rs.21,054/- because of outstanding amount of Rs.38,331/- was deducted for the previous loan.
Particulars of loan
(LIKOW00011127914)_(Third Loan)
EMI Outstanding as on (Rs.2717*33) Rs.89,661/-
Cheque bounce Charges & LPP Rs.63,781/-
(LICAL0007227584)_(First Loan):- Closed.
LICAL00009262183_(Second Loan):- Closed.
As per terms of the agreement o.p. has disbursed the amount of Rs.28,316/- out of Rs.30,000/-, as an amount of Rs.1684/- was deducted for the processing charge for the loan account. The amount received for the second and third loan was varied from the granted loan as the o.p. has deducted the dues for the previous loan account. If o.p’s activity was unjust and unreal for the second loan complainant should not take the third loan. Complainant took the loans again and again to meet up the loan account for the previous loan. Complainant has submitted in his complaint that he had paid only Rs.29,839/-, though he took the loan of Rs.(30,000 + 41,037 + 64,000) = Rs.1,35,037/-. He received Rs.61,474/- deducting the due amount of previous loan and in the case of first loan Rs.1684/- for processing charge. So the complainant has failed to substantiate the case and he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
The case is dismissed on contest.
