Date of Filling :01.07.2014
Date of Disposal :27.10.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S.SUJATHA,B.Sc., … MEMBER-I
CC.35/2014
Tuesday, the 27th day of October 2015
R.Saravana Perumal,
S/o V.Raman
Old No.1/102, New No.1/60,
Sardar Patel Road, Chemmancherry,
Near JPR College, Chennai - 600 119. …Complainant
/Vs/
M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager-legal,
ICICI Towers, Plot No.24,
South Phase, 2nd Floor East Wing,
Ambattur Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. …Opposite Party
….
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 09.10.2015 in the
Presence of Thiru.A.Poovannan, Advocate on the side of the complainant and M/s. Stalwart Law Firm, Advocate for the opposite party and upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This Complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party for claiming for compensation of Rs.15,000/-towards deficiency of service and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and pain.
The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:
1. The complainant had availed a credit card from the opposite party bearing No.9401270097333004 . After seeing the credit card transaction of the complainant the opposite party sanctioned a personal loan of Rs.1,84,000/- on 28.07.2007 without any request. At the time of sanctioning of the above personal loan the complainant was assured that the above loan does not attract any hidden cost. However the complainant right from the very next month of sanctioning of the above loan found that he was saddled with service tax. When the complainant questioned the same he was informed that it was applicable only for the first installment and subsequently it would not be levied. However when the complainant received the 2nd monthly statement which again had service tax he complained to the customer care executives and got a reply that the same was a statutory levy and when the complainant pointed out about the assurance of their staffs it was just ignored. The complainant towards the above mentioned personal loan had made 3 payments towards his monthly EMI’s by cheque namely:-
Sl.NO | date | cheque No | Amount |
1 | 09.08.07 | 533262 | 4,652 |
2 | 09.08.07 | 533263 | 5,798 |
3 | 07.09.07 | 533271 | 5,798 |
2. As per the instructions of the opposite parties customer care executives he sent the balance loan amount of Rs.1,67,752/- vide cheque No.533272 dated 17.11.2007 drawn on SBI Sastri Nagar Branch along with a covering letter foreclosing his loan. The opposite party acknowledged the receipt of the above sum in the subsequent month statement of accounts and stopped sending him the monthly statement in respect of the above personal loan. The complainant was under the bonafide belief that his contract had been terminated by the opposite party after receipt of the balance loan amount. However to the utter shock and disgust of the complainant he received a notice dated 21.02.2010 from the opposite party stating that he was due to pay a sum of Rs.11,925.12/-. The complainant immediately contacted the customer care of the opposite party and sought for explanation with regard to the above dated notice and came to know that the above due was with regard to his personal loan which he had settled over 2 years back. The complainant protested the above statement and gave all the previous transactions and sought for the verification of the same. The customer care executives of the opposite party after getting all the information with regard to the payment from the complainant promised to look into the above issue and sort out the same. However the complainant was disgusted to receive another notice dated 03.08.2010 from the opposite party stating that he was due to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,311/- to the opposite party towards his credit card and that the above matter was referred to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai for mediation inspire of the above mentioned telephone complaint. The complainant was perplexed as to how a due of Rs.11,925.12/- in February 2010 went up to Rs.1,12,311/- by August 2010. The complainant went to the above mentioned Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and produced all the documents towards settlement of his entire loan amount. The members of the legal services authority who were heading the mediation upon seeing all the documents from the complainant questioned the opposite party’s executives in the mediation centre as to how such a huge sum was arrived at for which there was no reply. The executives of the opposite party unable to reply to any of the questions of the complainant immediately promised to look into the above matter and sort out the same after completion of the ongoing mediation session.
3. Even after repeatedly following up with the opposite party nothing has been done in the above matter and the continued to receive notices from the opposite party with inflated amounts. Hence the complainant by a letter dated 27.03.2012 sent all the documents connected to the above loan repayment by R.P.A.D. which was duly acknowledged by the opposite party but they neither gave a reply nor took any step to close the account. The complainant states that in spite of paying his entire dues to the opposite party they are seeking huge amounts as alleged dues. When the complainant went to the head office of the opposite party in the month of July 2013 to sort out the above issue he was instructed to pay a sum of Rs.67,000/- as one time settlement towards closing of the above case.
4. The complainant is not liable to pay any money to the opposite party as he had repaid the entire loan amount received by him within 3 months itself. But now the opposite party is harassing the complainant on imaginary claims. The complainant for no fault of his is being made to run from pillar to post by the opposite party for the past 4 years. The opposite party not stopping with issuing notices have now listed the complainant’s name in the CIBIL (Credit Bureau History) as a defaulter. Hence this complaint.
The contention of the written version of the opposite parties has brief as follows:
5. The present complaint is not maintainable as against this opposite party and the same is required to be rejected in limine. The opposite party denies the entire averments as false and frivolous one. The opposite party states that credit card cum personal loan was sanctioned only at the request of the complainant. It is further stated that, no hidden charges were levied against the complainant as alleged by him. The opposite party had charged only those charges which are levied as per the terms of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party which includes statutory levies like Service Tax, late payment charges, cheque bouncing charges etc.
6. The complainant has not paid the entire outstanding loan amount. As per the statement of accounts maintained by the opposite party, as on date, the complainant is having an outstanding of Rs.1,19,297/- It is further submitted that the present complaint is a sheer abuse of process of this Hon’ble Forum and has been filed by the complainant with a malafide intention to unjustly enrich himself at the cost of the opposite party. As the opposite party understands from the records available that complainant has a total outstanding of Rs.1,19,297/- as on today which is payable to the Bank as per the terms of the personal loan facility. Therefore, as on the date of the filing of the complaint, there is no cause of action available for the complainant to approach this Hon’ble Forum.
7. As a part of the statutory requirement, it is mandatory for the opposite party to submit Management Information System (MIS) Report to CIBIL on a periodical basis. Since the complainant ahs not cleared the entire outstanding which is due at this account for a long time, his name was automatically reflected in the defaulter’s list of CIBIL. Therefore the opposite party never took any special attempt for this action.
8. The opposite party is involved in banking business in a wide range and the same is famous for its satisfactory customer service. Being a reputed Bank, the opposite party gives utmost importance to its customers. Even without a formal requisition from the customers, the opposite party has a practice of sending periodical monthly statements to its customers. Therefore it is completely denied that the opposite party failed to send bank statements to the complainant. The opposite party therefore submits that none of acts of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. On the side of the complainant the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and Exhibit A1 toA8 marked. Similarly the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party and Exhibit B1 and B2 marked.
9. At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:
- Whether this complaint is barred under limitation?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in that complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed for?
10. Point 1: According to the case of the complainant is that in spite of the
complainant had settled the entire balance loan amount pertaining personal loan obtained on 28.07.2007 of Rs.1,84,000/- for the cheque No.533272 dated 17.11.2007. The opposite party issue a notice dated 21.02.2010 stating that the complainant was due to pay a sum of Rs.11,925.12/- is arbitrary and thereby caused mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. While so, it is contended by the opposite party that the complainant has not at all completed the payment of the said loan till date, that it was intimated to the complainant in the monthly statement of accounts and therefore there is no deficiency in service and also on the date of filling of this complaint there is no cause of action.
11. At this juncture, the duty cast upon this Forum to peruse of the rival submissions put forth on either side with date of filling of this complaint there is no cause of action available for the complainant to approach this Forum and thereby there is no limitation in this complaint and therefore it is barred under limitation and for that ground alone this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. In order to establish the same learned counsel for the opposite party has relied upon the following decision:
State bank of India …Appellants
/Vs/
BS. Agricultural Industries … Respondent
Civil Appeal No.2067/2002 dated 20.03.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (AIR2009SC2210)
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that the complainant received the written notice from the opposite party on 21.02.2010 and thereafter the complainant received a notice from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai on 03.08.2010 and thereafter there were many correspondence between the complainant and the opposite party and on 27.03.2012 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party on the same was acknowledged by the opposite party and therefore this complaint is in time and no way barred under limitation.
12. At the outset, on perusal of the evidence based before this Forum by the complainant, it is learnt that the Exhibit A4, the notice to the opposite party dated 21.02.2010 for demanding the payment of overdue total outstand the sum of Rs.11,925.12/- on the credit card account no.9401270097333004. Similarly the notice from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai regarding above said loan which is marked as Exhibit A5 on issued on 03.08.2010. Therefore as per the Exhibit A4, the actual cause of action arose only on 21.02.2010, which is crystal clear. Subsequent to the above said notice, the complainant was kept silent without having any correspondence with the opposite party. In furtherance, it is learnt that in this regard no document produced before this Forum on the side of the complainant. In such circumstances after lapse of nearly 1 1/2 years, the Exhibit A7, the letter written by the complainant to the opposite party and the same was received by the opposite party on 29.03.2012 the acknowledgment marked as Exhibit A8. It is clearly seen that after the lapse of 2 years from 21.02.2010 only this complaint has been filed before this Forum on 31.01.2014.
13. At this juncture, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite party that mere writing a letter Exhibit A7, cannot make a cause of action. In fact actual cause of action arise on 21.02.2010 itself and therefore this complaint is not in a time. Regarding this point as per section 24A Consumer Protection Act 1986, this Forum has no jurisdiction to take up the complaint unless it is filled within 2 years from the date of which the cause of action as arisen. But the case in the hand, it is crystal clear that Exhibit A7, as not at all create any cause of action as made by the complainant and it cannot be easily thrown out, the plea taken by the opposite party that Exhibit A7 was created only for the purpose of showing the cause of action to file the complaint. Therefore, it is clearly established by the opposite party that the complaint has not been filled within the stipulated time.
14. In light of the above facts and observations this Forum as no hesitation to conclude that this complaint is barred under limitation, as per section 24A Consumer Protection Act 1986. Thus the Point No-1 is answered accordingly.
15. Point 2: In view of the conclusion arrived in point no.1, since the question regarding to the limitation itself cut the root of the matter and thereby it is crystal clear that the complaint is barred under limitation. Hence this Forum need not go for further discussion in respect of other facts viz. deficiency of service and compensation. Thus the point no.2 is answered accordingly.
16. Point 3: In view of the findings arrived in point no.2, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint. Thus the point no.3 is answered accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 27th October 2015.
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of Documents filed by the complainant
Ex.A1/Dt.19.09.2007: Xerox copy of the Account Statement of the complainant given by
the opposite party.
Ex.A2/Dt.19.11.2007: Xerox copy of the Account Statement of the complainant given
by the opposite party.
Ex.A3/Dt.02.11.2007: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite
party.
Ex.A4/Dt.21.02.2010: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the opposite party to the
complainant.
Ex.A5/Dt.03.08.2010: Xerox copy of the notice sent by the Tamil Nadu State Legal
Services Authority to the complainant.
Ex.A6/Dt. : Xerox copy of the Bank pass book of the complainant.
Ex.A7/Dt.27.03.2012: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite
party.
Ex.A8/Dt.29.03.2012: Xerox copy of the postal acknowledgment card of the opposite
party.
List of documents of the opposite party
Ex.B1/Dt.24.04.2009 : Xerox copy of Attorney in favour of N.S.Shanthakumari.
Ex.B2/Dt.09.01.2015: Xerox copy of the statement of account of the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
