IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 147/10 DATED 15.06.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant D. Shivalinga, No.2514, 2/C, 1st Main Road, 1st cross, Saraswathipuram, Kamakshi Hospital Road, Mysore.<br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Main Branch, Setty Building, Ramavilasa Road, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri. G.C., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 19.04.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 04.05.2010<br /> Date of order : 15.06.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 5 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Alleging deficiency in banking service, the complainant has filed the complaint. The opposite party in the version has denied the facts alleged and contended that, the charges claimed are in accordance with terms of the agreement<br /> <br /> 2. Supporting the respective contentions, both the parties have filed their affidavits and certain documents are filed. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 3. Now, we have to consider whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 4. Our finding is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. In substance, accordance to the complaint, he had availed loan of Rs.2,10,000/- on 28.04.2002 repayable in 180 monthly installments, each of Rs.2,387/-. Towards payment of the installments, post dated cheques were obtained by the opposite party. On 23.03.2010, the complainant paid the entire balance loan amounting to Rs.92,576/-. In spite of it, Rs.52.88/- cheque bouncing charge and Rs.2,051/- towards prepayment charges have been recovered. Further, the five cheques have not been returned and in spite of payment of the entire loan, in respect of one cheque, cheque bouncing charge has been claimed and having got the cheque bounced complainant has been defamed.<br /> <br /> 6. So for concernd to cheque bouncing charges, learned advocate for the opposite party submitted that, in fact, it is not cheque bounce charges, but towards difference of six days change of Floating Interest Rate. As regards bouncing of one cheque, it is submitted that, in day to day transaction, the cheque was sent to Bombay office, for collection, well in advance and hence, the said cheque came to be bounced. In this regard, learned advocate further pointed out the intimation sent to the complainant that, if loan is repaid on or after 18th of the month, borrower i.e., the complainant to direct the Bank to stop payment of the next month installment cheque. Considering this, particularly, the fact that in advance the cheque was sent for collection the contention of the complainant he has been defamed etc., cannot be appreciated in the present proceedings. Further, as stated above the said amount being different interest for six days, the complainant is not entitled for that amount.<br /> <br /> 7. As regards, Rs.2,051/-, it is submitted for the opposite party that, in case of prepayment, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the opposite party Bank is entitled to claim the said amount. Hence, the said claim under the circumstances cannot be held as deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 8. Lastly, so for concerned to return of unused cheques, as regards four cheques, Advocate for the opposite party submitted that, the opposite party Bank will not use them and even ready to return the same. As regards, another cheque, it is submitted that, it was sent to Bombay office and that has been already bounced, which cannot be misused and further if at all that cheque is also available, will be returned.<br /> <br /> 9. Accordingly, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party Bank is hereby directed to return unused four cheques to the complainant and if the bounced cheque is available that also should be returned to the complainant within a month from the date of the order.<br /> 3. Further the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 15th June 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />