BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.436 of 2013

Date of Instt. 12.11.2013

Date of Decision :15.12.2014

Ajay Mahajan, aged about 38 years son of Balbir Raj Mahajan, R/o H.No.17, Gurjit Nagar, Jalandhar City Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Managing Director, through its Director/General Manager/ Manager/Representative, ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Ltd, ICICI Bank Towers, South Tower, West Wind, 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051.

2. General Manager(Credit Cards & Personal Loans), ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Ltd, ICICI Bank Towers, South Tower, West Wind, 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051.

3. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd, Near Vishal Mega Mart, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Rajat Chopra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vikas Gupta Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant had done a transaction of Rs.1.25 Lacs on 1.9.2013 for buying computer peripherals in Jalandhar through Super Info Tech situated at Cool Road, Jalandhar. Prior to the transaction the complainant had enquired with ICICI Bank, 4-5 days prior to the transaction and even second time i.e 5 minutes prior to the transaction about the EMI facility available with the credit card and if available, the charges to be charged on funding the transaction. The complainant was informed by the ICICI Credit card department customer care executive 5 minutes prior to the transaction that EMI facility is available on the concerned credit card and card holder will be charged interest @ 7 % per annum for a 12 months tenure. However when the transaction was done and complainant followed up with ICICI Bank for converting the said transaction into EMI, the complainant was told that no such EMI facility is available on the concerned card and that such a facility was available till last month i.e till 31.8.2013 and thus either the complainant will have to pay the whole amount or he will be charged interest of around 4% monthly but when the complainant informed the customer care executive the enquiry done on 1.9.2013 i.e 5 min prior to the transaction the complainant was told about the EMI facility available with 7 % interest rate only, the customer care department told that he will put a request for EMI and may be it get approved but can not be promised and said that, the complainant will be charged additional Rs.15000 as processing fee and alongwith that 7 % interest per annum as interest on the principal amount, but when complainant asked the details of this Rs.15000 and he was informed that this Rs.15000 will be 11% processing fee besides 7 % interest rate but complainant has objected that before the transaction he was informed about only 7 % interest rate and moreover he had availed the same kind of EMI facility few years back and had paid only 7 % interest rate/lakh. Then the complainant was told that he will get a call back from some senior executive, that senior executive offered that only 11 % as processing fee will be charged and no interest @ 7% will be charged and that will be waved off. The complainant highlighted the malpractices of the ICICI Bank in such a manner where they commit 7 % first i.e before the transaction and later demand 11 % processing fee alongwith 7 % interest rate and then try to compromise with only 11 % as processing fee and waiving of 7 % interest rate but the complainant insisted on charging only 7% interest rate as committed by ICICI customer care dept 5 min prior to the transaction but ICICI Bank customer care dept refused to oblige. ICICI Bank has charged an interest rate of 3384.86 in 18.9.2013 statement i.e in the month of September when the said transaction of 1.25 Lac was done whereas in the previous month statement interest charged was Rs.892/- only which again is of no relevance as complainant has been paying the installments every month in time. This is the second time complainant was cheated by ICICI Bank. In February 2013, the same thing had happened with complainant and he had confirmed about the EMI facility before going for a transaction of Rs.50000/- and that time also the complainant had confirmed about the EMI facility and was told by ICICI Bank that the amount will be converted into EMI but once the transaction was done, then complainant was told that no such EMI facility is available as on date and such facility was available till last month and thus the bank started charging around 4 % per month as interest charges on the outstanding payment. Regarding this issue mails were sent to the concerned department by the complainant but no fruitful resolution was given to the complainant. The complainant badly needs the EMI facility on his credit card bearing No.5176533702138014 for his personal use and now he is suffering an irreparable loss, mental tension, mental agony, harassment and loss by the act and conduct of all the opposite parties as instead of solving the issue, ICICI Bank has issued another credit card bill with late payment charges of Rs.700/- as the complainant had stopped paying the credit card bill due as ICICI Bank is not ready to deliver what they had committed twice in the last one year and the complainant wanted a resolution this time. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is amounting to unfair trade practice and both the opposite parties provided with deficient and negligent services to the complainant. On such like averments the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay excess interest charged @ 4% on his 50,000/- transaction done in February 2013 and further opposite parties be directed to convert the transaction of 1.25 Lacs into EMI transaction @ 7% interest as per their commitment and to reverse the interest amount debited in the statement of account dated 18.9.2013. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that actual and true facts are that when the alleged purchase was done by the complainant no such scheme was available whereby card holder can purchase the goods on the credit card and has option to repay the same in EMIs in 12 months with interest @ 7% per annum. It is further submitted here that once the complainant approached the answering opposite party after the purchase he was clearly intimated that repayment of the transaction can be converted in the EMIs provided the complainant agrees to pay the processing charges and applicable interest. But the complainant had not consented for the same, as such repayment was not converted in the EMIs. It s submitted here that answering opposite party is agreed to convert this transaction into EMIs provided the complainant agrees to pay the processing fees and interest as applicable. Further at the time when the alleged purchase was done by the complainant no such scheme was available whereby card holder can purchase the goods on the credit card and has option to repay the same in EMIs in 12 months with interest @ 7 % per annum. It is further submitted that once the complainant approached the answering opposite party after the purchase he was clearly intimated that repayment of the transaction can be converted in the EMIs provided the complainant agreed to pay the processing charges and applicable interest. But the complainant had not consented for the same, as such repayment was not converted in the EMIs. It is submitted that all the relevant information was provided to the complainant as and when he approached the answering opposite party. It is submitted that complainant has never approached the answering opposite party for the EMIs on the purchase at the time of purchase of Rs.50,000/-. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. When the case was fixed for arguments, complainant moved an application for additional evidence on 3.12.2014 alleging that he had conversation with opposite party on phone number of the shop keeper from where the transaction had taken place i.e 0181-2226816, 0181-5054621, 0181-4626816 on 1.9.2013. It is further alleged that recordings of this conversion is necessary for just decision of the case. In the complaint, the complainant has no where alleged that conversation had taken place between the parties from the phone of the shop keeper on phone numbers mentioned in the application. If in such conversion had taken place between the parties, the same must have been in knowledge of the complainant and as such he should have led evidence in this regard while leading his evidence. No ground for any additional evidence at this stage is made out, consequently above said application for additional evidence moved by complainant is dismissed.

7. So far as transaction of Rs.50,000/- of February 2013 is concerned, there is no reliable evidence to prove that before doing that transaction the opposite parties confirmed that EMI facility was available and that the transaction amount will be converted into EMIs. The main grievance of the complainant is that transaction of 1.25 Lacs done by him on 1.9.2013 should be converted into EMI transaction as agreed by the opposite parties. On an application of the complainant, the opposite parties produced CD containing conversation between the complainant and customer care representative of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have also filed transcript of this conversation. From the transcript of conversation between the parties, it is clear that there was no concluded contract between the parties to convert the above said transaction into EMI transaction. In the last customer care executive stated that "please hold the line for a minute sir and give one moment of time". So it can not be said that opposite parties had committed to convert the transaction of 1.25 Lacs into EMI transaction without charging any processing fee. In their written reply, opposite parties have pleaded that complainant was clearly intimated that repayment of the transaction can be converted into EMIs provided the complainant agrees to pay the processing charges and applicable interest the complainant had not consented for the same and as such repayment was not converted into EMIs. Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

15.12.2014 Member President