DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of March 2009.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) C.C.No.45/2006
K. Santhoshkumar S/o. T.K. Ramankutty Nair Krishna Vihar Karingarapully (P.O) Palakkad. - Complainant (Adv. R. Manikandan) V/s
1. M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd Temple Complex Round South Thrissur. (Adv. M. Ramesh) 2. M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd West Fort Road Palakkad. - Opposite Parties
O R D E R By Smt. H. Seena, President The case of the complainant is as follows.
The case of the complainant is that he has availed a loan from the Opposite party for purchasing a vehicle “Toyota Qualis” make F2 metallic brand priced Rs.5,80,000/- from ICICI Bank Ltd and for repaying the loan he has issued 59 cheques at the rate of Rs.11,310/- per installment for sixty months including Rs.11,310/- by cash on 07.03.2004. The complainant's case is that at the time of delivery the loan amount was reduced to Rs. 5,27,000. A fresh repayment schedule was issued and according to that the complainant has to pay only 54 installments. So the cheques numbering 5 are paid in excess and that is to be returned to the complainant. Complainant states that the Manager of the Trichur Branch of the Opposite party has agreed to return the 5 cheques. Since the cheques were not returned the complainant did not repay installments during the month of April, May and June 2004 and after mediation by the staff of the Opposite party it was agreed that the cheques will be returned if the amount due is paid. So the same was paid. Even after that the Opposite party has not returned the cheques. The act of the Opposite party amounts to unfair - 2 - trade practice and deficiency of service on their part. Hence the complaint. Opposite party filed version with the following contentions.
According to Opposite party the loan amount sanctioned was Rs.5,80,000/-. It was not later reduced to 5,27,000/-. Therefore the question of agreeing to return 5 post dated cheques to complainant does not arise at all. It is false to state that a fresh repayment schedule was handed over to complainant. According to the Opposite party the Opposite party has not approached the complainant. But the complainant has voluntarily approached the opposite party for availing loan and a proforma invoice from Toyotta dealers Moopan Motors was produced.
An amount of Rs.5,80,000/- was sanctioned on 19.02.2004. The complainant has entered into a hypothecation agreement with the opposite party accepting the terms and conditions including the number of installments and amount. He himself issued 60 post dated cheques all for Rs.11,310/- towards the installments due from the complainant. The loan account number is LAPGT 000 1961320. The last installment paid was on 23.06.2004. The opposite party has filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as S.T Case No.1415/2005 before the Honourable Judicial First Class Magisterate Court No.4 at Kochi against the complainant herein as the cheque paid towards the legal liability (installment) was dishonoured. The above complaint is filed to escape from the liability, and that too after the complaint was filed by the opposite party and the copy of the S T case was received by the complainant who is the accused in that case.
The cheques issued by the complainant are for the installments due to the opposite party. So the allegation that there is unfair trade practice, which caused mental agony to the complainant, is not correct. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The evidence adduced consists of Exhibits A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibits B1 to B5 marked on the side of the opposite party.
Issues for consideration are whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
Points 1 and 2 The definite case of complainant is that the Opposite parties initially agreed to disburse a loan - 3 - amount of Rs.5,80,000/- which was later reduced to Rs.5,27,000/-. Complainant has actually given 59 post dated cheques for Rs.5,80,000/-. But as the loan amount was reduced only 54 instalments need to be paid and therefore 5 cheques are in excess with the Opposite party. Inspite of several requests Opposite parties has not returned the same and it amounts to deficiency of service on their part of the complainant has produced Exhibit A1 to A3 documents which were marked with objection. Exhibit A1 is the repayment schedule for an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- and Exhibit A2 is the schedule for Rs.5,80,000/- which was manually corrected to Rs.5,27,000 and tenure of repayment was corrected to 54 months instead of 60 and EMI to 11,309/- instead of 11,310/- . Exhibit A3 is the schedule for Rs.5,27,000/-. Exhibit A6 document is the letter issued by the Opposite party No.1 promising to return the excess 5 post dated cheques. The document was also marked with objection.
According to the Opposite party, loan amount disbursed was Rs.5,80,000/- and there is no excess post dated cheques to be returned. Opposite party has produced Exhibit B1 to B5 documents in support of the contention. In all the documents, viz, car loan application, hypothication agreement and the ledger extract relating to the applicant loan account etc loan amount allotted is seen as Rs.5,80,000/-.
Analysing the available evidence on record, it can be seen that no convincing evidence is placed before the forum to substantiate the stand of the complainant that the Opposite party has reduced the loan amount to Rs.5,27,000/-. Exhibit A2 document in which Rs.5,80,000/- was manually reduced to Rs.5,27,000/- does not reveal the fact that the same was done by the Opposite parties. Further we seriously doubt the genunity of Exhibit A3 document which was marked with objection by Opposite party. On bare perusal of the document itself it can be seen that the same is not issued by the Opposite parties. The only document in favour of the complainant is the letter issued by the Opposite parties to the complainant promising to return 5 post dated cheques. Document was marked subject to proof. Complainant has not taken any steps to examine the signatory of the document in order to proove the same. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to proove a case in his favour where as going through the documents produced by Opposite party it can be seen that loan amount is stated as 5,80,000/- in the car loan application Hypothication agreement Ext B3 signed by the complainant reveals that loan amount is 5,80,000/-. Particular of the repayment schedule also reveals the same.
From the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service or - 4 - unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite parties.
In the result complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of March 2009. PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1. - First schedule of ICICI Bank dated 07.03.04 Ext. A2 - 2nd schedule of ICICI Bank dated 01/04/2004 Ext. A3 – Revised schedule of ICICI Bank Ext. A4 – Lawyer notice issued by Bank Ext. A5 – Reply notice issued by complainant Ext. A6 – Final schedule issued by ICICI Bank
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Ext. B1 - Loan application dated 20/01/2004 Ext. B2 – Proforma Invoice from Moopan Motors submitted by complainant dated 19/01/2004 Ext. B3 – Hypothication agreement executed by complainant in favour of Bank Ext. B4 – Ledger Extract. Ext. B5 – Confirmation statement issued by Moopan Motors to ICICI Bank.
Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
