Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/267/2018

M.Dhukkaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Cheif Manager, M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd, another - Opp.Party(s)

K.Kathiresan

09 Sep 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :22.07.2010         

   Date of disposal             :15.09.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT:  THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                     TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                           : MEMBER-1

                               THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA    : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.267/2018

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

Dr. M. Dhukkaram,

S/o. P. Muthu,

No.28, Bakthavatchalam Colony,

1^st  Street, Vadapalani,

Chennai-600 026.                                                                     .. Complainant.                                

..Vs..

 

1.The Chief Manager,

M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd.,

No.46, Gandhi Mandapam Road,

Kotturpuram,

Chennai-600 085.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch,

Chennai-600 098.                                                                     ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                : M/s. S. Rajendran and D. Elizabath

 

Counsel for  opposite parties              : M/s.S.Namasivayam, S. Rajkumar

J.Ravindrnath Singh and S.Prabakaran

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to directing the Opposite parties jointly or severallyto pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience, hardship suffered by the complainant and the cost of the complaint.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 436/2010.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.267/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant is a Dentist and practicing in Chennai and has great respect from his patients, friends, relatives, neighbours and public at large.  The complainant submits that opposite parties are strangers and has no financial transactions with them much less than any loan transaction.  The complainant had received a legal notice on 12.11.2007 from the opposite parties to make a payment of Rs.17,368/- towards outstanding dues as on 31.10.2007 and also to furnish security for an amount of Rs.63,908.15 to secure the loan for further EMI’s within 7 days from the receipt of notice.  The complainant got shocked that he never availed any loan from the opposite parties nor signed any loan papers at any point of time in favour of the opposite parties.  The complainant further submits that he had contacted the opposite parties and sought the details of loan and loan documents but the 1^st opposite party had not given any reply or documents rather persistently calling upon the complainant to pay the money. The complainant submits that the opposite parties had been continuously sending written demands on 03.11.2008. 03.12.2008. 03.07.2009, 03.09.2009 and 12.11.2009 claiming money under an alleged Loan agreement No. LPCHE00009870078.  The complainant submits that no way he was connected with the alleged loan agreement and the opposite parties have themselves manipulated false loan account in the name of complainant and has been making illegal demands.  The complainant sought the details of alleged loan transaction to find out the truth from the opposite parties.  The complainant submits that one Mr.K. Arun Babu claiming to be the employee of opposite parties call upon the complainant to settle the arrears and the complainant explained that he has not availed any loan but the opposite parties paid no heed and went to the extent of threatening the complainant by using unparliamentary words without having any regard to his education, profession and stratification in the society and it had caused untold hardship and sufferings.  The complainant further submits that in the communication dated 12.11.2009, the opposite parties informed the complainant that they have planned to publish the complainants name in the defaulters list maintained by CIBIL and as claimed by them, to further humiliate the complainant had caused the complainant’s name published in CIBIL which resulted that complainant had been debarred from applying any loan for no fault of him.  The opposite parties acts have caused mental agony, loss, inconvenience and hence the complainant was constrained to give a police complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 04.02.2010 and thereafter caused a legal notice on 10.12.2009 to opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.  The opposite party received the legal notice on 13.12.2009 but failed to comply.  Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The opposite parties submitted that the complainant had filed the complaint with malafide intention.  Complainant had signed an agreement for utilizing the personal loan of the ICICI Bank Ltd. subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement.  The transactions between complainant and the opposite parties is one of the contract whereby the complainant has agreed to use the credit card services of the opposite parties subject to the conditions that in case of failure to pay for the services availed by complainant within prescribed period he will be charged interest and penal interest to ensure that the money is promptly paid.  Based on this, in October 2004 the complainant was sanctioned personal loan in account no. LPCHE 00009870078 for a sum of Rs.1,64,908/- repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.4,342/- each.  After initial payment the complainant became irregular and as of April 2011 he is liable to pay  a sum of Rs.1,25,875/-. Having received the personal loan the complainant is estopped from going back on that.   The opposite parties denied the allegations in para 7 of complaint that the complainant was no way connected with the loan agreement and the opposite parties have themselves manipulated false loan account in the name of complainant.  The opposite parties denies the allegations in para 8 & 9 that the opposite parties went to the extent of threatening the complainant and use of unparliamentary words.  These allegations are not only totally false but highly defamatory.  The opposite party denies the allegations of para 10 of the complaint and submitted that CIBIL is a factual record of borrowing, repayment including the time of repayment and closure compiled from information received from different banks and institutions for the benefit of all the financial institutions.  Every individual transaction is recorded as it happens and it is allowed to be there forever.  The transactions, the names and the credit repayment history included in the CIBIL cannot be changed or withdrawn unless for inaccuracy even at the request of the institutions or individuals.  CIBIL is not a list of defaulters, but only a record of credit transactions and it will not bar any banks from giving credit to anyone.  The opposite parties denies that they never threatened the complainant and compensation sought by the complainant is baseless.  The opposite parties submits that there was no deficiency of service and complaint was filed with malafide intention of preventing opposite parties from realizing their legitimate dues and hence the complaint may be pleased to dismiss with exemplary costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainant had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 were marked on his side.The opposite parties have filed written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.B1 to B6 were marked on their side.

4. Point No.1:-

The complainant submits that he is a Dentist and practicing in Chennai and states that opposite parties are strangers and has no financial transactions with them much less than any loan transaction.  The complainant had received a legal notice on 12.11.2007 from the opposite parties to make a payment of Rs.17,368/- towards outstanding dues as on 31.10.2007 and also to furnish security for an amount of Rs.63,908.15 to secure the loan for further EMI’s within 7 days from the receipt of notice.  The complainant submits that he never availed any loan from the opposite parties nor signed any loan papers at any point of time in favour of the opposite parties and the opposite parties continuously sending written demands for loan no. LPCHE00009870078.  The complainant alleged that the opposite parties manipulated documents in the name of the complainant and threatened to publish the complainant name in CIBIL as defaulter. The opposite parties acts have caused mental agony, loss, inconvenience and hence the complainant was constrained to give a police complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 04.02.2010 and thereafter caused a legal notice on 10.12.2009 to opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.  The opposite party received the legal notice on 13.12.2009 but failed to comply.

5. The opposite parties submits that the complainant had filed the complaint with malafide intention.  Complainant had signed an agreement for utilizing the personal loan of the ICICI Bank Ltd. subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement.  Based on this, in October 2004 the complainant was sanctioned personal loan in account no. LPCHE 00009870078 for a sum of Rs.1,64,908/- repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.4,342/- each.  After initial payment the complainant became irregular and as of April 2011 he is liable to pay  a sum of Rs.1,25,875/-. Having received the personal loan the complainant is estopped from going back on that.   The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant that they had manipulated false loan account and also the allegations of threatening the complainant.  The opposite parties submits that the CIBIL is factual record of borrowing, repayment including the time of repayment &closure and CIBIL records never debar a person from availing loans from any banks or financial institutions.   The opposite parties denies that they never threatened the complainant and compensation sought by the complainant is baseless.  The opposite parties submits that there was no deficiency of service and complaint was filed with malafide intention of preventing opposite parties from realizing their legitimate dues and hence the complaint may be pleased to dismiss with exemplary costs.

6. The complainant contended that the opposite parties are total strangers and has no financial transactions with them.  But the complainant himself had admitted in his proof affidavit that he has a savings bank A/c No. 602701213037 in opposite parties bank, obtained credit card from opposite party bank and also borrowed a personal loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from the opposite parties vide loan A/c. No. 00001009027 and obtained another personal loan of Rs.1,64,908/- vide loan A/c. No. 00009870078.  This is evident from the Ex.A11 to A17 filed by the complainant and Ex.B2 to Ex.B6 filed by opposite parties.  Hence the contention of the complainant that opposite parties are strangers is not maintainable.

7. The complainant contended that all of a sudden, the opposite parties had sent a legal notice dated 12.11.2007 to make the payment of Rs.17,368/- towards outstanding dues and security for Rs.63,908.15 to secure the loan for further EMI’s and continuously sending demands for the above dues against the loan A/c. LPCHE00009870078.  The complainant in his proof affidavit and written arguments stated that he had availed a personal loan of Rs.2,40,000/- vide loan A/c. No. 00001009027 in March 2003 and paid EMI’s through ECS and the same is evident from Ex. A11, A12 and A14 filed by complainant.   In the middle of repayment period, the complainant was sanctioned a sum of 4,00,000/- as top up of existing personal loan and a sum of Rs.1,64,908/- was credited in his account vide cheque no.222222 after adjusting the existing personal loan A/c. No.00001009027.  On the other hand, it is observed from the Ex.B4 (Page No. 72-74) the complainant had paid 20 EMI’s against personal loan no. 00001009027 and Ex.A14 is only a quote dated 18.10.2004 for pre closure of personal loan a/c. no. 00001009027.  There is no documentary evidence filed by either party regarding pre closure or NOC of loan a/c. no. 00001009027.  From the Ex. A16, it is found that the opposite parties had returned the PDCs  taken against the personal loan a/c. no. 00001009027.  The opposite parties in their averments have not claimed any dues against personal loan a/c. no. 00001009027. 

8. As contended by the complainant that the opposite parties have claimed dues only against the loan a/c. no. 00009870078.  As per Ex. A15 and B3, the opposite parties had disbursed a sum of  Rs.1,64,908/- to complainant as personal loan vide loan a/c. 00009870078 with an EMI of Rs.4,342/- for 48 months in the month of October 2004.  As per Ex.A15, the complainant had paid 10 EMIs by issuing cheque every month.  Whereas it is observed from the Ex. B2 and Ex.B3 (Page No. 18-19) the cheques issued by the complainant were bounced.  The complainant in his averment admitted that there was default in repaying EMI’s and hence settlement was arrived between complainant and opposite parities.  But no document was filed by the complainant in this regard.  The complainant in his proof affidavit and written agreement states that as per settlement letter he had made a payment of Rs. 20,000/- vide cheque No. 389230 dated 31.05.2005, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- vide cheque no. 389229 dated 29.01.2005 and Rs. 20,000/- by cash.  As per Ex.B3 (Page 18) and Ex. A18, the payment of Rs.20,000/- vide cheque No. 389230 and Rs.1,20,000/- vide cheque no. 389229 only were received and receipts were issued by opposite parties vide receipts LP 3586366 and 3586372 both dated 29.01.2005.  There is no proof of document was filed by the complainant for the cash payment of Rs.20,000/-.   The opposite parties in their averment stated that as of April 2011 a sum of Rs.1,25,875/- is still liable to be paid by the complainant against personal loan a/c. No. 00009870078. The complainant himself contradicting his statements in proof affidavit stating in Para 6 that he had paid a total sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- in the month of May 2005.  Whereas in Para 7 he had stated that loan a/c. 00009870078 was closed on 18.10.2004 itself.  No document proof or NOC is filed by the complainant for the closure of personal loan a/c. no. 00009870078.  The complainant countered that how the opposite parties had returned the PDCs when there is an outstanding dues in loan account no.0009870078.  As per Ex. A6, the PDC’s were returned by the opposite party against personal loan a/c No. 00001009027.  Hence the contention of closure of personal loan a/c no. 00009870078 is not acceptable. 

9. The complainant in his averments contends that opposite parties vide their communication dated 12.11.2009 planned to publish his name in the defaulters list maintained by CIBIL with the intent to humiliate and debarred from applying any loan.  The complainant failed to file that communication as a proof.  In reply to this,  the opposite parties states that CIBIL is a factual record of borrowing, repayment including the time of repayment.  Every individual transaction is recorded, and it is only a record of credit transactions and it does not prevent a bank from giving credit as it is purely the discretion of the bank.  The complainant himself admitted in the proof affidavit that there was default in repayment the EMIs against personal loan a/c no. 00009870078.  It is also observed from the Ex.B4, the complainant issued four cheques towards repayment of EMI’s against personal loan a/c. No. 00001009027 and the same were bounced for which the complainant had paid cash payment vide receipt no. LP 1011951 as seen in Ex. A18.  Hence the allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties regarding publishing in CIBIL as a defaulter is not maintainable. 

10. Based on the observations from the above, this Commission is of the considered view that opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as contended by complainant and the complainant was only directed to pay the balance amount due in respect of loan a/c no. 00009870078.  Though the complainant alleged that upon negotiation and discussion, the complainant agreed to settle the outstanding loan amount as one time settlement and accordingly closed the account by paying the balance amount on 31.05.2005 there is no documentary proof for the same.   It is further found that the civil suit filed in O.S.No.6839/2011 for recover of Rs.128169/- with interest for the loan account no. 00009870078 by the opposite party against the complainant was dismissed for default on 05.01.2017. Hence it is found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

11. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the complaint. Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15^th day of September 2022.

 

MEMBER I                                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	25.08.1995	Certificate of Registration under Dentist Act
Ex.A2	12.11.2007	Legal Notice from O.P. to Complainant
Ex.A3	03.11.2008	Illegal Demand Notice issued by the O.P.
Ex.A4	03.12.2008	Illegal Demand Notice issued by the O.P.
Ex.A5	03.07.2009	Illegal Demand Notice issued by the O.P.
Ex.A6	03.09.2007	Illegal Demand Notice issued by the O.P.
Ex.A7	12.11.2009	Illegal Demand Notice issued by the O.P.
Ex.A8	03.01.2010	Illegal Demand Notice issued by the O.P.
Ex.A9		Legal Notice from Complainant to O.P. with acknowledgement Card
Ex.A10	04.02.2010	Complaint lodged with the Police Authorities.
Ex.A11		Letter issued by the Complainant to ICICI Bank Ltd., to debit a sum of Rs.7052 from his savings account No.602701213037
Ex.A12	29.04.2003	Amortization Scheme Report date 29.04.2003 issued by the Opposite Party
Ex.A13	13.10.2004	Loan Agreement signed by the complainant on 13.10.2004
Ex.A14	18.10.2004	Letter dated 18.10.2004 issued by the opposite party for pre-payment of personal loan a/c No. LPCHE 00001009027
Ex.A15	20.01.2014	Statement issued by the opposite party
Ex.A16	08.01.2005	Letter dated 08.01.2005 issued by the opposite party along with PDC’s for the personal loan A/c. No. LPCHE 00001009027
Ex.A17		Cheque No.306379 to Cheque No.306386 (8 Nos.) all drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd.
Ex.A18		Letter issued by Mr.P.L.Umapathy – Representative of OPP. Party along with receipts (3 Nos.)
Ex.A19	20.08.2011	Copy of the Plaint filed by the Opp. Party in O.S. No.6839/2011 on the file of City Civil Court at Chennai

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1	19.07.2006	Power of Attorney
Ex.B2		Statement of Accounts
Ex.B3		Loan Account Statement for LPCHE00009870098 and details
Ex.B4		Loan Application in September 2004 and details
Ex.B5		Loan Application in June 2001 and Details
Ex.B6		Statement of Account of Credit Card

 

MEMER – I                           MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT