Date of Filing:17.07.2009<br /> Date of Order: 10.02.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1673 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Dilip Solanki<br /> # 296/12, 17th ‘C’ Main<br /> 3rd Block, Rajajinagar<br /> Bangalore 560 010 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> 1. M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.<br /> # 95/1, Lakshmi Building<br /> II Floor, 4th Main 11th Cross<br /> Malleswaram, Bangalore 560003<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Axis Bank<br /> Koramangala Branch<br /> Bangalore Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant praying that opposite party be directed not to collect penal interest and direct the opposite party No. 1 to withdraw letter issued to CIBIL in which it has written a negative remarks about the complainant. The complainant has also prayed that opposite party No. 1 be directed to issue unconditional apology and to grant compensation.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant has availed housing loan from the opposite party No. 1 on 26.12.2007 for Rs. 24,24,620/- and Rs. 11,00,000/- aggregating to Rs. 35,24,620/-. He has tendered 36 cheques in favour of opposite party. Opposite party is giving reminder letters asking complainant to make payment. Complainant is not responsible for non-presentation of cheque. Complainant had issued legal notice to opposite party. Complainant submitted that he has aproached opposite party No. 2 seeking loan for purchase of vehicle. Opposite party No. 2 rejected the loan application. Opposite party No. 1 has written negative remarks against the complainant. The said action of opposite party has tarnished the image of complainant. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. The opposite parties have filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in limine. Complainant owes one installment of Rs. 38,962/- and other charges which he is liable to pay. Opposite party is ready to accept the above installment without any other charges only after receiving the same would be updated to CIBIL. Complainant in order to escape from the outstanding amount has filed false and frivolous complaint. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 has also submitted that it has rejected the loan application. The action of the opposite party No. 2 is as per procedures and guidelines of the bank. Opposite party No. 2 is a formal party. No prayer is sought against opposite party No. 2. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 4. After filing version by the opposite parties, the case is set for evidence of complainant. On 04.01.2010 complainant remained absent. Evidence not produced. Again case was adjourned to 19.01.2010. On that date also complainant failed to file his affidavit. Case was adjourned to 09.02.2010. On that date also complainant was not present. The affidavit of the complainant was not filed. Opposite parties filed affidavit evidence. <br /> 5. Arguments for advocate for opposite parties heard. Since, complainant and his counsel not present matter was taken for orders.<br /> 6. I have gone through the pleadings of parties. By reading the complaint there is absolutely no allegation or pleading in respect of deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties. Admittedly, the complainant has taken loan of more than Rs. 35,00,000/- from the opposite party No. 1 and he is repaying loan by way of installment at the rate of Rs. 38,962/- p.m. The opposite party No. 1 has submitted that complainant is due of one installment and other charges of Rs. 14,567/-. Opposite party No. 1 clearly submitted in the version that it is ready to accept the installment without any charges and after receiving the same matter would be updated to CIBIL. So, when this is the case there is no reason for the complainant to file this complaint. Complainant cannot seek direction from this fora to the bank not to collect the penal interest. The question of collecting penal interest is depending upon the terms and conditions of the loan agreement entered into between the parties. Collection of penal interest is as per the terms and conditions of loan document. It will not amount to deficiency of service on the part of bank. Therefore, the consumer fora cannot pass orders directing the bank not to collect penal interest. If at all there is any dispute between the complainant and bank in respect of penal interest or making negative remarks against him all these can be sorted out and settled by mutual agreement, negotiation and discussion. This type of litigation cannot be brought to the fora. Reserve Bank of India has constituted Banking Ombudsman. If the complainant has really aggrieved by the action of the bank he will be free to approach Banking Ombudsman for settlement of the issue or any dispute between him and bank. So taking into consideration of any view of the matter and complainant’s allegation the present complaint is not maintainable. There is no cause of action to file the complaint. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />