Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/12/388

SURESH BABU - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ICICI BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

JAYASANKAR P.G

30 Apr 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 30^th day of April 2014

Filed on : 27/06/2012

PRESENT:

 

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.388/2012

Between

Suresh Babu, : Complainant

Varikkanikkal house, (By Adv. Jayasankar P.G.,

T.K. Shanmathuran road, M/s. Menon & Pai, I.S. Press

House No. 14/75, Maradu P.O., Road, Ernakulam,

Kochi-682 304. Kochi-682 018)

 

Vs

1. M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., : Opposite parties

‘Land Mark’, Race Course Circle, (By Adv. Lal K. Joseph,

Vadodara, Gujarat-390 007 M/s. Sheriff Associates, 41/318-C,

(Regd. Office), represented by Kolliyil Buildings, Near Mullassery

its Managing Director and CEO. Canal, Chittoor road,

Kochi-682 011. )

2. M/s. ICICI BANK Ltd.,

ICICI Bank Towers,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai-400 051

(Corporate Office)

 

3.ICICI Bank Credit Card

Operations, P.O.Box 7931,

Tulsiwadi P.O.,

Mumbai- 400 034.

 

4. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Emgee Square, M.G. Road,

Ernakulam, Kochi.

 

O R D E R

V.K. Beena kumari, Member.

 

The facts leading to this complaint are as follows:

 

 

The complainant, a resident of Kochi and an employee in National Insurance Company, is a customer of the opposite party Bank since July 2006, holding credit card No. 4477 4740 23150009. The opposite party Bank in October 2007 offered the complainant a personal loan worth

Rs. 1,63,000/- and the opposite party Bank sent a letter dated 30-10-2007confirming the crediting of Rs. 1,63,000/- to the account of the complainant maintained with the State bank of India bearing No.027701000627. The loan Account Number with the opposite Bank was 940127013223009. The complainant issued a single cheque vide cheque No. 977778 dated 26-12-2007 for Rs. 7691/- showing two account numbers and directed the opposite party bank to credit the amounts to the two accounts shown therein. But the opposite party bank transferred the money only into one account i.e. to the credit card account resulting default in the other account. This resulted in accumulation of late payment fees and interest charges in the personal loan account. The complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party bank the mistake committed by them but the mistake was not corrected. Instead the complainant was asked to make further payments only to the personal loan account till the excess credit in the credit card account was fully exhausted. The complaint started to issue separate cheques for the two accounts thereafter and excess amounts under credit card account had been fully adjusted on 10-03-2008. But the mistake done with respect to the personal loan account for the first five months remained unrectified. These inconsistencies forced the complainant to foreclose the personal loan account on 5^th October 2008 and opposite party required the complainant to remit an amount of Rs. 1,42,579/-. The complainant remitted the said amount vide cheque bearing No. 689798 dated 28-11-2008. Even after the foreclosure, the complainant

 

was again asked to remit a further amount of Rs. 22,069.51 in January 2009 against which the complainant preferred a complaint to the opposite parties office at Hyderabad informing the details right from the inception to foreclosure of the personal loan account. The opposite party bank did not take any steps to remove the lien marked on the personal loan account or to issue ‘No due letter’ to the complainant and an amount of Rs. 31,539/- maintained in the complainant’s account had been blocked by the opposite party bank without any intimation to the complainant. It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite party marked lien on the savings bank account several times. The complainant therefore took up the matter with credit information Bureau India Ltd. (CIBIL). CIBIL informed the complainant that the amount of Rs. 31,559/- was overdue with the opposite party bank, that complainant was restricted from obtaining good loans from banks that CIBIL negative score being given to the complainant. The above and the request calls from the opposite party bank had inflicted severe mental agony, loss of reputation and damages to the complainant. It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite party bank had imparted severe mental agony, loss of reputation and damages to the complainant. It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite party bank belatedly effected reversal of the wrong entries in the monthly bill dated 10-12-2011 and the ‘No due certificate’ was also issued by the opposite party bank in December 2011. The complainant filed this complaint before this forum seeking direction against the opposite party bank to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- for the deficiency in service, for marking of lien on savings bank account without notice to the complainant, for the unreasonable delay in issuing ‘No due letter’ to the complainant and to pay costs of proceedings.

2. The version filed by the opposite party bank is as follows:

 

 

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case, that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Disputes Act, 1986 since he never availed any service from the opposite party bank, that there is no consideration for the issuance of credit card or for the credit card facility availed by the complainant that the dispute arose out of a lien marking which is a statutory right of the opposite party bank and hence not a ‘consumer dispute’. The complainant instead of paying credit card bill & personal loan bill separately, chose to make payment by issuing a single repayment cheque without any direction as to the division of amounts to the respective accounts, hence the opposite party bank credited the amount to the primary account which is the credit card and the initial EMI in respect of Personal Loan account did not get credited. The complainant paid Rs. 1,42,579/- on 05-10-2008 towards Foreclosure amount but the total foreclosure amount as on that date was Rs. 1,61,621/- and on 22-08-2009 vide legal notice demanded Rs. 22,069.51 and the complainant’s savings bank account was lien marked, that the lien marking was done in August 2009, October 2010 and in October 2011, that considering the matter in good will gesture to customer the opposite party bank had removed the lien over the savings bank account of the complainant and allowed the complainant to transact the savings bank account of the complainant and allowed the complainant to transact the savings bank account and No Due certificate (NDC) had not been issued since there were outstandings in the facility account. It is submitted that the complainant’s negative CIBIL rating was not caused due to any deficiencyin service on the part of the opposite party bank, the opposite party bank had only updated the reports of the customers including that of the complainant in due course of business, that the opposite party bank

 

waived the outstanding dues only as a gesture of goodwill. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any claim either under the Consumer Protection Act or under any other Act. The opposite party bank contended that the complaint is filed with ulterior motive and to give colour to his complaint and is without any corroboration or facts. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs to the opposite party bank.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the documentary evidence adduced by him were marked as Exbt. A1 to A5. The witness of the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exbts B1 to B4 were marked on the part of the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

i. Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs

as prayed for?

5. Point No. i. The opposite party contended that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum on account of 2 reasons namely, the opposite party received no consideration for the issuance of the credit card to the complainant and lien marking on personal loan account of the complainant is a statutory right of the opposite party bank to settle accounts between the complainant opposite party bank. The credit card facility is a service made available to the complainant in connection with banking subject to certain conditions. If the complainant opts to pay only a minimum amount towards his credit card dues, 1^st opposite party bank is entitled to an interest for the amounts due. Therefore credit card

facility is not a service free of any charge. It is a conditional service and not a service free of any charge as contended by the opposite party bank. The next contention of the opposite party bank is that lien marking is a statutory right of the opposite party bank in connection with settling of accounts

 

between opposite party bank and the complainant/customer of the opposite party bank and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudge an issue regarding settling of account. In the instant case the issue raised by the complainant is about the mistake committed by the opposite party bank in not accounting the cheque amount in two accounts as directed by the complainant which resulted default in the personal loan account and excess credit in credit card account. The complainant’s specific case is that he had brought to the notice of the opposite party bank the mistake committed by the opposite party bank in crediting the entire amount in cheque dated 26-12-2007 to the credit card account and not a single rupee credited to the personal loan account, this resulted in default in personal loan account, that the opposite party bank had not rectified the mistake even when the complainant pointed out the same to the opposite party bank. Instead, the opposite party bank directed the complainant to effect further payments only to the personal loan account till the excess credit in the credit card account was fully exhausted. The opposite party bank on the other hand contended that the single repayment cheque was given without any direction as to the division of the amounts to the respective accounts but opposite party bank has not adduced any evidence before this Forum to show that the above fact was duly intimated to the complainant. Had the opposite party bank rectified the mistake then and there this complaint would not have arisen. The opposite party bank had not rectified the mistake even when it was pointed out by the complainant. Further it is noted that the EMI amount is well within the knowledge of the opposite party bank. The above acts of the opposite party bank clearly amounted to deficiency in service on their part and the above matters not related to any settling of accounts between the complainant and the

 

 

opposite party bank. Therefore we find that this Forum has ample jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since it related to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. This point is found against the opposite party bank and we find that the complaint is maintainable before this Forum.

6. Point No. ii. The mistake committed by the opposite party bank in not crediting the amount in personal loan account remained unrectified for the 1^st five months and the inconsistencies compelled the complainant to foreclose the personal loan account by paying Rs. 1,42,579/- by way of cheque dated 28-11-2008 as required by the opposite party bank as evidenced by Exbt. A2. In fact collection of foreclosure charges of

Rs. 4,070/- is found incorrect and unjustifiable since the opposite party bank had suffered no loss on account of foreclosure of the loan account. But even after foreclosure the complainant was asked to pay a further amount of Rs. 22,069-51 in January 2009. Further a cheque issued by the complainant to a third party was dishonoured even when the complainant was maintaining sufficient amount in his account to honour the cheque. It is seen that no notice was issued to the complainant before rejecting the cheque.

 

7. In the meantime the opposite party bank blocked an amount of Rs. 31,539/- in the complainant’s account. The above matter was taken up to CIBIL by the complainant only to know from CIBIL that an amount of Rs. 31,539/- was overdue to the opposite party bank and that the complainant was restricted from obtaining good loans from banks. The details furnished to CIBIL by the opposite party bank in due course of their business noting the complaint as a defaulter amounted to deficiency in service on the part

 

 

 

of the opposite party bank. The facts stated in the foregoing and this paragraph go to show that all the unfortunate incidents and

inconveniences emanated from the mistake committed on the part of the opposite party bank in not crediting the amount in the personal loan account of the complainant. Moreover the opposite party bank waived the outstanding on the loan account without any request from the complainant as deposed by DW1, the witness of the opposite party bank. This amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the opposite party bank is liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service, also for wrongly marking the lien on the savings bank account of the complainant without any notice, for the unreasonable and unavoidable delay in issuing the “No due letter” to the complainant and for the marking of negative score by CIBIL. Not to mention the above conduct on the part of the opposite party bank amounted not only to deficiency in service but also to unfair trade practice as defined in Sec. 2(1) (r) The complainant has claimed

Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) towards compensation for the inconveniences, mental agony suffered but the claim is found on a higher side. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above we find that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid by the opposite party bank to the complainant towards compensation and costs of proceedings for the mental agony suffered and inconveniences caused to the complainant by the opposite party bank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 50,000/-( Rupess fifty thousand only) towards compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant. .

The above order shall be complied with, within a period of 30days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till realization.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of April 2014.

 

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Sd/-

A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

 

Forwarded/By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.

 

Appendix

Complainant’s exhibits :

 

Ext. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 30-10-2007

 

A2 : Copy of g-mail dt. 07-04-2013

A3 : Copy of letter dt. 31-10-2011

A4 : Copy of information dt. 21-10-2011

Series

A5 : Copy of letter dt. 02-12-2011

Opposite party’s exhibits :

 

Ext. B1 : Copy of power of attorney

B2 : Copy of I.T. Certificate dt. 25-07-2013

.

B3 : Copy of Lien intimation dated 04-10-2011

 

B4 : Copy of letter dt. 02-12-2011

 

Depositions:

 

PW1 : Suresh Babu

 

DW1 : Babu Sreejith N