STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

ICICI Bank, SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Ramneet Moudgil, wife of Sh. Rajiv Moudgil, R/o #  440, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

                          ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.04.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:-

“In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OP to:-

(a) Restore the “Quantum Optima Facility” provided to the complainant at the time of opening of Bank Account bearing No.001301528919 with the OP Bank in the year 1999, from the date of its discontinuation and thereafter, credit interest, which would have accrued to the complainant from time to time, had the said facility continued in its original form;

(b)Pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment;

(c) Pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation;

This order be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @18% per annum on the amounts mentioned at Relief (a) and (b) of Para No.7 above, till it is actually paid to complainant apart from payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation”

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant (now respondent), opened a Savings Bank Account bearing No.001301528919, with the Opposite Party (now appellant) in the year 1999,  having “Quantum Optima Facility”. At the time of opening the account, the complainant was told that any amount in multiple of Rs.5,000/-, in excess of Rs.5,000/-, in the savings account, shall be automatically converted into fixed deposit, and interest shall be paid accordingly. The complainant agreed to open her account, because of the above said facility, being provided by the Opposite Party. At the time of scrutiny of the statement of account, the complainant came to know that for the last 7-8 years, the interest, which was to accrue to her account, as per the agreement, was not being credited in the same, and was not paid to her. The complainant, immediately, made a complaint to the Opposite Party, vide letter dated 31.07.2008, informing the deficiency, in service, and also requested that her account, from the date of its opening,  be scrutinized, and the interest, which would have accrued to her as per “Quantum Optima Facility” be credited in her account. In response to the above said letter, she received reply from the Opposite Party, vide letter dated 08.08.2008, whereby it was informed to her, by it (Opposite Party), that the “Quantum Optima Facility” was discontinued w.e.f. 01.07.2005, the “Auto Sweep Facility” in the saving account had also been withdrawn and instead it (Opposite Party), offered a “Linked FD Plan”, which was to be provided, only on specific request of the customer(s). It was further stated, in that letter, that the existing customers were given option to continue with the Automatic Sweep Facility or offered Linked FD Plan. It was further stated, in the letter aforesaid, that the said option was to be exercised by 30.09.2005, but, no such request was received from the complainant, so the “Quantum Optima Facility” was withdrawn. In response to the aforesaid letter, the complainant wrote letter dated 12.08.2009 (infact 12.08.2008), wherein, she specifically mentioned, that neither she had received any such letter, from the Opposite Party, nor such intimation was given to her, by any other mode. It was further stated that, in these circumstances, withdrawal of the “Quantum Optima Facility” was unilateral, and against the DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY EQUITABLE ESTOPPLE. Thereafter, the complainant, requested many a time, to the Opposite Party, to credit interest, which would have accrued to her, as per the “Quantum Optima Facility”, because due to this facility alone, she had opened the account with it (Opposite Party), but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             In the written version, filed by the Opposite Party, it was admitted, that the complainant had opened a Saving Bank Account bearing No.001301528919, with it, in the year 1999. It was stated that the complainant was having a facility, where any amount in excess of Rs.10,000/- would get transferred to Fixed Deposit,  in multiple of Rs.5,000/- from the Saving Bank Account. It was further stated that the said facility was withdrawn, in the year 2005. It was further stated that the complainant was accordingly intimated, about it, through quarterly statement, for the period from April 2005 to June 2005. It was further stated that,  it was clearly mentioned, in the said statement, that the customers, who wished to continue with the “Quantum Optima Facility” must intimate the Bank, by 30.09.2005. It was further stated that no such request was ever received from the complainant, so the “Quantum Optima Facility” was withdrawn. It was further stated that the letter dated 12.08.2008, was never received by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the interest, which had accrued, on Saving Bank Account, had been duly credited in the account of the complainant, so there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             Alongwith the appeal, an application for seeking necessary permission, to place on record, certain documents, by way of additional evidence, was filed. It was stated that the documents, sought to be adduced, by way of additional evidence, being old, were not traceable earlier, despite best efforts, and, as such, the same could not be produced, during the pendency of complaint. It was further stated that the said documents, being of vital importance, going to the root of the case, are essential for the just decision of the dispute.  

9.             By virtue of this application, the documents, sought to be adduced, are the copies of account opening form and statements of account. The complaint was filed on 21.01.2010, and was decided on 20.04.2012. Sufficient opportunity was granted to the Opposite Party, by the District Forum, to produce its evidence. Had diligent efforts been made by the Opposite Party,  to trace the account opening form, and prepare the statements of account, the same would have certainly been produced, in evidence, before the District Forum.  The mere fact, that the record, being old, could not be traced earlier, could not be said to be a sufficient cause for allowing the application at this stage. No party can be allowed, to fill in the gap, left in its case, by way of seeking permission to lead additional evidence, at the appellate stage. The evidence, sought to be produced, is not essential, for just decision of the dispute between the parties.  The evidence, already produced, on record, before the District Forum, can be said to be sufficient, to decide the controversy between the parties. Even otherwise, the sole object of the Consumer Protection Act,  is to provide speedy, inexpensive and affordable redressal of grievance of the Consumers. It was keeping in view this object that Section 13(3A) was incorporated in the Act, whereby, it was mandated that every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the same, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party, where the complaint did not require analysis or testing of commodities, and within five months if it required analysis or testing of commodities. In this case, the complaint was decided after a period of more than two years, from the date of institution. If the application is allowed, at this stage, that would amount to reopening of the whole case, thereby, further delaying the disposal thereof. No ground, therefore, is made out, for allowing this application. The application, therefore, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed.

10.           It was submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that, in the quarterly statement for the period from April 2005 to June 2005, it was in clear-cut terms stated that “Quantum Optima Facility” had been withdrawn and the customers could switch over to “Auto Sweep Facility” or “offered Linked FD Plan”, but no such option, was exercised by the complainant.  The submission of the Counsel for the appellant does not appear to be correct. No such document was produced, before the District Forum, showing that such a statement was sent to the complainant, wherein, it was mentioned that “Quantum Optima Facility” facility, had been withdrawn. Even, no letter, earlier to the one dated 08.08.2008, Annexure C-2, was written by the Opposite Party, to the complainant, regarding withdrawal of the said facility. Even, in the letter dated 08.08.2008, which was sent in pursuance of the letter dated 31.07.2008, written by the complainant, it was not mentioned  that “Quantum Optima Facility”,  in respect of her Saving Bank Account was withdrawn from a specific date. In this letter, it was also not mentioned that this fact was disclosed in the quarterly statement for the period from April 2005 to June 2005. Once the facility, aforesaid, was granted, in favour of the complainant, by the Bank, it could not unilaterally withdraw the same. Such facility could only be withdrawn, after giving a notice to the complainant. Since, no notice to the complainant was given, with regard to the withdrawal of this facility, as is proved, from the record, the act of the Opposite Party, in not crediting the interest, which had accrued to her, as per “Quantum Optima Facility” amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

11.           It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that since the facility, in question, was withdrawn from 1.07.2005, whereas, the Consumer Complaint was filed,  by the complainant, on 21.01.2010, much beyond the period of 2 years, from the date of accrual of cause of action, and, as such, the same was barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not appear to be correct. Since, it has been held above that the complainant was not informed, regarding the withdrawal of the facility, in question, by sending him a notice, or by mentioning the same in the statement, referred to above, she did not know about the same. Cause of action accrued to the complainant, for the first time, on receipt of letter dated 08.08.2008, Annexure C-2, from the Opposite Party, that the facility, in question, had been withdrawn. The period of limitation, thus, started running from 08.08.2008. The complaint having been filed on 21.01.2010, therefore, could be said to be well within the time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

12.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

13.           The order, passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.           Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

July 9, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg