The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.P, where O.P is the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Balasore.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.53,000/- (Rupees Fifty three thousand) only for treatment of his health from O.P-Bank on 10/12.02.2014 by pledging 3 gold coins weighing 8 gms. each, cost of which is Rs.73,000/- (Rupees Seventy three thousand) only. The complainant repaid a sum of Rs.50,173/- (Rupees Fifty thousand one hundred seventy three) only towards principal and Rs.4,487/- (Rupees Four thousand four hundred eighty seven) only towards interest in his loan account, but the Complainant got a letter dtd.28.09.2015 from the O.P-Bank to pay the loan amount along with interest, where certain amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only, out of capital loan amount was to be paid along with interest. On receipt of such notice, the Complainant being treated for his mental derailment and out of fear instantly paid Rs.60,886/- (Rupees Sixty thousand eight hundred eighty six) only on 18.01.2016, which is an extra amount paid by him. The receipt of said amount on proper money receipt by the O.P is illegal and has been done by him with an ulterior motive to be recovered from them with penalty. The Complainant sought for clearance of his loan amount, but the O.P did not comply the same for the reason best known to them. Cause of action arose on 30.01.2016. The Complainant has prayed for return back the excess amount paid by him along with interest and litigation cost.
3. Written version filed by the O.P-Bank through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P has further submitted that the O.P-Bank disbursed loan of Rs.52,800/- (Rupees Fifty two thousand eight hundred) only on 12.02.2014 to the Complainant against securities of 24 gms. Gold coin vide loan Account No.060905004015 @ 13% interest p.a. duly signed by the Complainant on the “register” on that date and agreed to pay the entire dues on or before 12.02.2015. The Complainant repaid Rs.1,731/- (Rupees One thousand seven hundred thirty one) only, Rs.4,487/- (Rupees Four thousand four hundred eighty seven) only on 14.05.2014 and 22.08.2014 and Rs.50,173/- (Rupees Fifty thousand one hundred seventy three) only on 22.08.2014 towards closure of the said loan account. As such said loan account was closed by the O.P and handed over the gold to the Complainant under due acknowledgement by the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted another loan application pledging the above said gold coin weighing 24 gms. on the same day i.e. on 22.08.2014 and accordingly, the O.P-Bank disbursed loan of Rs.50,600/- (Rupees Fifty thousand six hundred) only to the Complainant on 22.08.2014 vide loan Account No.060905004955 @ 13% p.a. agreed to pay entire dues on or before 22.08.2015. After expiry of tenure of repayment of said loan, the Complainant did not pay any heed for repayment, as such the O.P-Bank issued a demand notice to the Complainant on 11.09.2015 to repay a sum of Rs.56,173/- (Rupees Fifty six thousand one hundred seventy three) only along with interest till actual date of payment. On failure to repay the said loan by the Complainant, the O.P-Bank sent one loan recall notice to the Complainant on 28.09.2015 requesting to pay the entire dues. Thus, the Complainant paid Rs.60,886/- (Rupees Sixty thousand eight hundred eighty six) only on 18.01.2016 towards closure of his loan Account No.060905004955 and accordingly, the O.P-Bank closed the loan account and handed over gold to the Complainant under due acknowledgement. If at all, the Complainant had already paid dues towards his loan account earlier, upon subsequent demand by the O.P-Bank, he could have approached the Hon’ble Forum before paying Rs.60,886/- (Rupees Sixty thousand eight hundred eighty six) only again to the O.P-Bank. Present complaint is filed by the Complainant with an ill intention and by making false, frivolous and misleading statements, which require dismissal U/s.26 of the Act.
4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?
(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he has already taken a gold loan from the O.P-Bank and has paid all the dues towards it and subsequently, he received a demand notice of Rs.60,886/- (Rupees Sixty thousand eight hundred eighty six) only from the O.P and repaid the same without verifying the actual demand of the O.P and the second demand is baseless and he has paid the excess dues to the O.P, for which he has filed this case praying for refund the excess amount along with litigation cost. In support of his argument, he has filed certain documents, out of which Annexure-1 and 2 are the xerox copies of deposit slips, which shows regarding payment of Rs.50,173/- (Rupees Fifty thousand one hundred seventy three) only and Rs.4,487/- (Rupees Four thousand four hundred eighty seven) only respectively in respect of loan Account No.060905004015 and Annexure-3 is the xerox copy of deposit slip of Rs.60,886/- (Rupees Sixty thousand eight hundred eighty six) only in respect of loan Account No.060905004955. So, it shows that there are two loan accounts. But, it has been argued that the Complainant has deposited Rs.60,886/- (Rupees Sixty thousand eight hundred eighty six) only before the O.P out of wrong impression as he has been treated for his mental derailment and out of fear. In support of his illness and cause of fear, nothing has been produced in this Forum by the Complainant. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P that the Complainant has availed second gold loans after clearing of all the dues of the first gold loan, by pledging the same gold and the copy of such application form is filed by the O.P as Annexure-A, which discloses clearly about the signature of the Complainant. But, the Complainant took the plea that he has signed in a blank paper at the time of receiving of first gold loan. But, no sufficient proof about this is available in the case record and there is no specific pleading in this regard also. The second loan is due against the Complainant and several notices have been issued to the Complainant. However, when the Complainant has cleared all the dues, there is no deficiency of service by the O.P-Bank in this case. So, this case is liable to be dismissed as the Complainant is making false and frivolous statements against the O.P.
6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on hearing both the sides, I found no reasonable ground to believe the argument of the Complainant and on the other hand, there is ample force on the argument of the O.P basing on the materials available in the case record and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P, to avail as relief by the Complainant as prayed for. So, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.P-Bank, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 8th day of January, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
