BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.723/2019

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Sadik N.

S/o Ahmed Basha,N,

Aged about 39 years,

R/at No.166,

New Bank Colony,

Konankunte,

Amruthnagar Main Road,

Opp.Corporation Bank,

Bengaluru-560 062.……COMPLAINANT

Rep by Sri.Kumara B, Adv.

The Chief Manager,

ICICI Bank,

ICICI Bank Towers,

Near Chakli Circle,

Old Padra Road,

Gujarat-390 007.……      OPPOSITE PARTY-1

Corp office at:

The Chief Manager,

ICICI Bank,

ICICI Bank Towers,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai-400 051.……      OPPOSITE PARTY-2

Local Office at:

The Manager,

ICIC Bank Limited,

Mytree Centre,

410 Ground Floor,

Hosur Road,

Next to Oxford College of Engg.

Bangalore-560 068.

Opposite party no.1 to 3 Rep by Sri.Jai M.Patil., Adv.,

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for direction to the opposite party No.1 to 3 to refund of the excess amount received by opposite party No.1 to 3 by way of ECS with other charges levied upon the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a for causing mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost and such other reliefs as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. It is not in dispute that the complainant had availed loan of Rs.10,000/- from opposite party no.3 bank and the same was disbursed on 23^rd August, 2006 and the same was to be repaid in 36 months instalments along with interest.  Further, it is not in dispute that in the month of January-2008, the complainant expressed his intention to pre-close the loan and had paid a sum of Rs.10,891/- on January 30, 2008 towards his loan.  Further, the bank had closed the loan account on September 27, 2018 and No Due Certificate (NDC) was dispatched to the complainant’s communication address through post on October 01, 2018.

3. It is the further case of the complainant that the loan was to be repaid in EMI of Rs.541/- and the due date was started on 05.10.2006 and it was deducted through ECS from the complainant’s bank account.  Further, after the foreclosure of the loan account, the opposite party No.1 to 3 had presented the INVALID EMIs cheque up to 05.08.2008 and also imposed fine of Rs.225/- for INVALID EMIs.  Even though the complainant had requested the opposite party No.3 to issue NOC, the opposite party has shown evasive reply.  Further, the complainant had tendered undated postdates cheques for ECS at the time of availing loan and the same was not returned to the complainant, after the dues been cleared by the complainant, rather the opposite party had presented the said cheques and imposed those extra charges.  Further, even though notice been issued by the complainant on 14.02.2019 for return of the extra amount collected and compensation for having caused mental agony, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 did not comply the same.  Hence, the complaint came to be filed.

4. Even though sufficient opportunity been given to opposite party no.1 to 3, they did not file version in time and the permission sought to file version came to be dismissed by order of this Commission on 17.10.2019.

5. To prove the case, the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P11 documents.  The opposite party No.1 to 3 did not adduce evidence. The opposite party No.1 to 3 had filed documents along with written arguments.

 6. Counsels for both the parties have filed their written arguments. 

 7.  Heard the arguments on both the sides.

        8. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 to 3 ?

    ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the  

         compensation as sought ?

     iii) What order ?

  9.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative    

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

10.POINT NO.1:- The complainant (PW1) has reiterated the fact stated in the complaint, in the affidavit filed in the form of his evidence in chief. There is no dispute with regard to the loan of Rs.10,000/- been borrowed by the complainant.  Further, it is not in dispute that on 30.01.2008 the complainant paid Rs.10,891/- and sought to pre-close the loan account.  It is stated in the written argument filed by the opposite party No.1 to 3 that on 30.01.2008 the complainant had with an intention to pre-close the loan had paid a sum of Rs.10,891/-, but the loan account was not closed and remained open due to technical glitch and the complainant did not seek for NDC and in the month of September 27, 2018 the complainant approached bank and had a detailed discussion and in the month of September 27, 2018 the bank had closed the loan account.  On perusal of the account statement filed by the opposite party No.1 to 3, it appears that on 30.01.2008 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,891/-.  Thereafter, opposite party No.1 to 3 had deducted INVALID EMIs of Rs.541/- on 05.02.2008, 07.07.2008 and 05.08.2008 respectively and levied charges on representation of INVALID EMIs on 06.03.2008, 08.04.2008, 28.04.2008 and 05.06.2008 and levied fine of Rs.225/- for each INVALID EMIs against the loan.  It is not explained by the opposite party No.1 to 3 as to why the said deduction was made even after the lump-sum amount was paid by the complainant on 30.01.2008 of Rs.10,891/-.

11. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed detailed report with regard to the quantum of loan.  According to him, the opposite parties bank have charged a total sum of Rs.2,523/- as an extra amount.  We feel the opposite parties bank had without any reason had charged the said amount.  The opposite party No.3 is the branch of opposite party no.1 & 2.  Hence, the opposite party no.1 & 2 are also vicariously liable for the act of the opposite party no.3.  Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 to 3.  Accordingly, we answer this point in affirmative.   

12. POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed for return of the excess amount collected.  Hence, we feel the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.2,523/- excess claimed with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the said charge been imposed on the complainant.  Further, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.  For the mental agony caused we feel the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- and towards litigation cost a sum of Rs.5,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.  Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative. 

13. POINT NO.3:-  In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,523/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the said charge been imposed on the complainant till realization.

Further, the opposite party No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony suffered and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant. 

The opposite party No.1 to 3 shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite party No.1 to 3 fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.10,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 29^th day of September, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•  

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.Sadik N, the Complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. The authorization schedule in respect of complainant’s son account maintained at ICICI Bank.
2. Copy of the letter dt.30.01.2008 sent to the complainant by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 giving details of the amount payable by the complainant on complainant request for foreclosure.
3. The payment receipt dt.30.01.2008 issued by opposite parties for having paid Rs.10,891/-.
4. Loan account statement pertaining to complainant maintained at opposite parties bank.
5. The attested copy of the pass book in respect of complainant SB account bearing No.0425101042081 maintained at Canara Bank from which account the periodical EMI’s is being transferred to complainant loan account maintained at opposite parties bank.
6. The copy of the account details given by the opposite parties showing that there are 36 delayed payments and 35 missed payments.
7. Copy of the detail report showing credit score.
8. Copy of the letter dt.11.09.2018 addressed to complainant sent by the opposite parties.
9. No due Certificate dt.03.10.2018 given by the opposite parties.
10. Copy of the legal notice dt.14.02.2019 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.
11. Postal receipts, postal acknowledgements and undelivered postal cover. 

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

-NIL-

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

1. Loan account statement for complainant.

2. Copy of the CIBIL report.

3. Copy of the reply notice dt.14.03.2019 issued by the opposite parties bank.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•