Kerala

Idukki

CC/08/226

Aliyar.T.M. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

K.M.Sanu

20 Apr 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKIConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
CONSUMER CASE NO. 08 of 226
1. Aliyar.T.M.Theyilandiyil house,Perumattom,Muvattupuzha.IdukkiKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. ManagerICICI BankLtd,Pala Road,Thodupuzha.PO>IdukkiKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 20 Apr 2009
ORDER

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.

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 20th day of April, 2009


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER


 

C.C No.226/2008

Between

Complainant : Aliyar T.M

Thailandiyil House,

Perumattom,

Puthuppady P.O

Muvattupuzha.

(By Adv: K.M Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

ICICI Bank Limited,

Pala Road, Thodupuzha

Thodupuzha P.O.

2. The Manager,

ICICI Bank Limited,

M.G Squire, Ground Floor,

MG Road, Patma Junction,

Ernakulam.

(Both by Advs: K.J Thomas & Lal K Joseph)


 

O R D E R


 

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESDIENT)


 

The complainant approached 2nd opposite party with the representative of the opposite party named one Mr. Biju for availing a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant agreed to repay the loan within 4 months. But the opposite party assured that the loan could be closed on any day after 6 months without any strain. All the documents were signed on January 2008 and the opposite party charged Rs.11,236/- as service charges. The complainant received an amount of Rs.4,88,764 only. The 2nd opposite party never told about the service charge in the beginning. The repayment was equal monthly installments of Rs.15,082/- each and the complainant was properly paying the same. After six months the complainant approached the opposite party for closing the loan, the complainant had paid Rs.90,396/- after when 6 months completed. Rs.45,314/- as principal amount and Rs.45,082/- as interest. The opposite party directed to pay Rs.4,92,000/- after six months for closing the loan. But the complainant is ready to pay Rs.4,54,684/- for the balance payment. The same amount was deposited in the bank account of the complainant in opposite parties bank and requested for closing the loan by a letter dated 04/07/2008, in registered post. But the opposite party never acted upon that, the E.M.I of Rs.15,082/- was only transfered to the loan on 5th of each month. Another registered letter was issued on 08/09/2008 to the opposite party stating the same. But the opposite party has received Rs.15,082/- each for the 10th installments and asked for Rs.24,167/- as pre-closure stage. The complainant is entitled to get the interest received by the opposite party for the loan after depositing the entire amount in the account. So the petition is filed for getting back Rs.35,830/- paid by the complainant as interest and also for compensation.


 

2. The opposite party filed written version and submitted that this is basically a dispute on accounts which can be resolved only through a competent Civil Court. It cannot be treated as a complainant as defined under section 2(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is admitted that the opposite party disbursed Rs.5 lakhs as personal loan to the complainant. The officers of the opposite party never assured the complainant that the loan can be fore closed after six months. The processing charges collected from the complainant was strictly as per the fact, almost all the financial institutions are collecting the said charges. As per the terms and conditions of the loan 5.62% pre-foreclosure charges were agreed by the complainant. Though he has made available the funds in his bank account he never issued any cheque or signed auto debit mandate so as to enable the 2nd opposite party to appropriate there said amount towards the loan account. The only authorization, the opposite party is having is to appropriate the monthly installments as and when it become due. The complainant have entered into the agreement fully knowing the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant has already availed the benefits of the loan and after availing the same, he cannot now turn back from his obligations under the said agreement, he estopped from disputing the terms and conditions.


 

So there is no unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party.


 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ; if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?


 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant.


 

5.The POINT :- Complainant availed a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the opposite party but after depositing the entire loan amount in the bank, the opposite party never closed the loan transaction. The complainant was examined as PW1. As per PW1, the Manager of the opposite party approached the complainant for arranging the loan and they have convinced that the complainant could close the entire loan within 6 months. Service charge of Rs.11,236/- was received from the complainant at the time of availing the loan. The repayment EMI was Rs.15,082/- each. PW1 re-payed Rs.90,396/- within six months. Rs.45,314/- as principal amount and Rs.45,082/- as the interest. PW1 deposited the balance Rs.4,54,684/- in his account and noticed the matter to the opposite party for closing the loan transaction. Exts.P1 and P2 are the copy of the same and the postal Acknowledgment card for the same. But the opposite party never intended to close the loan, but asked for another Rs.24,167/- as pre-closure interest. Exts.P3 and P4 are the copy of the loan pass book of the complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite party cross examined the complainant and also filed written version. As per written version of the opposite party the complainant continued into an agreement with the opposite party and the complainant is liable to act upon that agreement. No authorization was given to the opposite party by the complainant to realize the amount from the account of the opposite party. The opposite party never convinced that the loan could be closed within 6 months.


 

It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant was properly paying the loan and by E.M.Is. But the complainant requested for the closing of the entire loan after paying Rs.4,54,684/- in his loan account of the opposite party's bank on 4.07.2008. Even after that, the opposite party never tried for closing the loan but the monthly installments were recovered from the account. As per the opposite party, the complainant never gave an authorization for receiving the entire loan amount from the account for closing the loan. The complainant send a letter as Ext.P1 to the opposite party requesting for closing the loan. But the opposite party replied for the same as Ext.P5 stating about the pre-closure charges of Rs.24,167.29 is needed for closing the loan. But they never requested for an authorization for releasing the amount from the account. The learned counsel for the opposite party never disputed the payment of Rs.4,54,684/- in the account of the complainant in opposite party's bank for closing the loan as per Exts.P3 and P4. It means that even though there was enough amount in the account of the complainant in the opposite party's bank for closing the loan, the opposite party never tried for closing the loan. It is a gross unfair trade practice. If there was any difficulty for the opposite party to realize the amount from the account, the opposite party ought have informed the same to the complainant. It is also very clear that the complainant is not a defaulter of the

loan. So we think it is not proper to ask for further interest after the payment of the entire loan amount in the bank and for the pre-closure charges.


 

All the financial institutions, banks etc. are much bothered to close their payment within short period of time, but here the opposite party is not interested to close the transaction, but bothered only about the interest, even though the party is ready for closing the loan. It means that the ordinary layman is forced to pay the interest without any limit, which is against the principals of natural justice. Hence we think to direct the opposite party to exempt the complainant from paying the pre-closure amount and the interest after the payment of the entire loan amount on 4.07.2008. The complainant is entitled to get the loan closed and all the documents should be returned to the complainant.


 

Hence the petition allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to exempt the complainant from charging the interest for the loan after 4.07.2008. The 2nd opposite party is also directed to avoid pre-closure charges from the complainant as per Ext.P5. The opposite parties are directed to settle the entire loan transaction of the complainant as loan account No.LPCOCOOO12205304 by receiving the amount and return all the documents produced by the complainant at the time of availing the loan within one month. The 2nd opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.


 

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of April, 2009


 

Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

 

 

 

APPENDIX


 

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - T.M Aliyar

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Letter issued by the complainant dated 04/07/2008

Ext.P2(series) - Postal receipts and Acknowledgement card

Ext.P3 - Copy of Account Pass book

Ext.P4 - Photocopy of Bank statement

Ext.P5 - Reply letter and Statement produced by the opposite party dated 13/10/2008

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil


 


HONORABLE Sheela Jacob, MemberHONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan, PRESIDENTHONORABLE Bindu Soman, Member