Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/693

ICICI BANK LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANAJY PODDAR - Opp.Party(s)

04 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 04.05.2017

First Appeal No. 693/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 05.06.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 1073/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V) (North-West) CSC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088)

In the matter of:

1. ICICI Bank Ltd.

Couter No. 2,3& 4

SD Tower, Community Centre

Plot No. 7, Sector 8

Rohini, New Delhi

Through its Authorized Representative

Sh. Anupam Singh

 

2. ICICI Bank Consumer Caredivision

ICICI Bank Ltd.

Corporate Office:

ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra

Kurla Complex

1.  

Through Managing Director                               .........Appellants

 

Versus

 

Sh. Sanjay Poddar

S/o Sh. Badri Prasad

      R/o Flat No. 304

      New Modern Apartments

      Plot No. 26/2, Sector-9

                Near Sarvodaya School

Rohini, Delhi-110085                                        ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGMENT

1.         Appellant ICICI Bank Ltd. has impugned the orders dated 05.06.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum V Shalimar BaghDelhi-110088. Vide impugned orders the following directions were passed against the appellant:

1. Zeroise the statement of account of the complainant and issue him with an NOC forthwith.
2. Issue a statement to CIBIL that the complainant was not a defaulter on payment of the credit card and it was the mistake on the part of the OP bank that he was shown as a defaulter.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him.
4. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as the cost of litigation.”

 

2.         Facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly the complainant Sh. Sanjay Poddar was having a credit card issued by the appellant/OP. In response to the statement of accounts. Complainant issued a cheque dated 29.07.2008 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Rajender Place for an amount of Rs. 85,731/-. On 09.08.2008, an officer of the OP bank named Ms. PoojaBhargav informed the complainant that the aforesaid cheque had been lost. Complainant accordingly issued a fresh cheque dated 09.08.2008 forRs. 85,431/- drawn on Punjab National Bank which was handed over to the officer of the OP bank named Sh. Rajesh Kumar Alloria. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Alloria after collecting the cheque issued a payment receipt for an amount of Rs. 85,431/-. Complainant received the credit card statement showing a balance of Rs. 99,005.22/-. Complainant contacted the OP bank and informed that an amount of Rs. 8543/- only had been deposited in his account on 01.04.2009. On 02.04.2009, certain agents of the OP bank allegedly came to the residence of the complainant. A PCR van also came to the residence of the complainant on the basis of a complaint made from 921875554 which was the mobile number of one of the agents of the OP bank. Complainant received second statement of account dated 11.04.2009 showing an amount of Rs. 1,28,788.92/- as the balance amount which included late payment fee, overtime charges, service tax etc. Legal notice sent by the complainant to the OP bank remained un-replied.
3.         Defence raised by the OP bank was that only an amount of Rs. 8543/- stood credited to the account of the complainant. OP bank however admitted the receipt of the cheque but stated that it was yet to verify the genuineness of the receipt issued by its officer named Sh. Rajesh Kumar Alloria.
4.         Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint observing as under:

“It gave credit of Rs. 8,543/- to the complainant and sought payment of the balance amount which act of the OP bank was illegal, uncalled for and unjust. Infact, this case exemplifies a very inapt handling of its customers by the OP bank and the high handedness of its employees. It also is a reflection on the working of the OP bank and it appears that there is no adherence to banking norms. The re-conciliation process appears to have been given a go-bye. An instrument handed over for collection to the OP bank is accepted by it for a lesser price and on the fact of it, it levies penatlies and other charges on the customer. Admittedly, the complainant had given the cheque for Rs. 85,431/- to the OP bank in the discharge of his liability. The OP bank did not collect the entire proceeds of the said cheque and started hounding the complainant for the balance. Was it not the duty of the OP bank to collect the full amount of the cheque? Why did it collect/realize only a sum of Rs. 8543/- when the cheque was for Rs. 85,431/-? The OP bank has simply failed to answer.

To make matters worse, it appears to us that there is nobody in the OP bank who understands or is prepared to accept its fault. When the facts of the case were brought to our notice, we asked the department head of the concerned section/the regional manager to appear in person and explain its conduct. One Mr. AmitMohanti “Regional Collection Manager”, Delhi & NCR appeared before us; however, we were told that the assistant general manager collections SaumyaGuha Thakur would be in a position to explain the lesser credit given to the complainant. The AGM collection did not appear to explain the conduct of the OP bank. The tone and tenor of the officers of the OP bank was such that they would not admit their fault and continued to harp on the same tune that the OP bank had collected a sum of Rs. 8543/- only and the same had been credited to the account of the complainant. When asked as to how the amount was collected-in-short no explanation was forthcoming. When asked as to how the bank reconciled its accounts, again there was no explanation. The arrogance runs deep in the system. Every employee of the bank, who dealt with this case, be it an officer or a person of the lower rank had simply ignored the protests/representations of the complainant that he was not at fault and had liquidated his liability by handing over the cheque for Rs. 85,431/-. The Officer/officers rather than taking up the matter with Punjab National Bank, on which the cheque had been drawn, insisted on the complainant making payment of the amount which had been collected in short by the OP bank. We can well imagine the plight of the complainant who must have felt that he had hit against a wall. The OP bank not only did not see reason when the complainant had brought the facts to its notice, it was equally non-committal when we brought up the matter to its notice. We are, therefore, convinced that the OP bank was grossly deficient in providing services to the complainant and had also resorted to an Unfair Trade Practice.”

5.         In appeal, the OP bank reiterated the averments made in the District Forum. In its grounds of appeal, OP bank stated that the complainant was having knowledge of the fact that only an amount of Rs. 8543/- stood credited in his account. Instead of making the payment to the OP bank, complainant chose to file the complaint in the District Forum.
6.         I have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel for the OP/appellant Sh. PuneetBhalla Advocate and counsel for the respondent Sh. Pradeep Kumar Advocate, at length.
7.         Perusal of the record shows that the complainant did not approach the consumer forum immediately after discovering the controversy of crediting of lesser amount. Complainant had sent an e-mail dated 13.12.2008. He also sent a legal notice dated 23.04.2009 which was sent by way of registered AD letter. Postal receipt and the AD card have also been placed on record by the complainant. On the contrary, the OP bank simply denied this document. The plea thus taken by the OP bank is devoid of merits. OP bank after discovering the fact that a lesser amount had been credited, ought have rectified the statement of accounts. Not only this, the OP bank levied penalty and late payment charges.The same have not been rectified so far. Instead of complying with the orders of the Ld. District Forum it has filed the appeal which as discussed, is devoid of merits.
8.         Before parting it may be mentioned here that the complainant submitted that the agents of the OP bank were still threatening and abusing the complainant. Complainant produced before this Commission copies of the certain communications written by him to the Police Station stating that the complainant and his relatives were abused by the agents of the OPs even after the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned orders. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP however denied the contention. In the circumstances, present appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
9.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)​