BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No  : 463 of 2009

Date of Institution :  02.04.2009

Date of  Decision   :  02.02.2010

Manjit Singh Bhalla s/o Late Sh. Balwant Singh, R/o H.No. 469, Ph-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

The General Manager, ICICI Bank, SCO No. 151-152, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party

QUORUM:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

          SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI       MEMBER

PRESENT: Sh. B.R. Rana, Adv. for the Complainant.

         Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv for OP.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, the Complainant was issued Credit Card No. 4477 4604 5492 4004 by the OP Bank, which he did not use for any type of purchase, except for availing a loan of Rs.31,500/- offered by the OP in the month of August, 2004, which was to be repaid in 24 EMIs of Rs.1509.38/- each. It was averred that inadvertently, he had paid Rs.4650/- in excess to the OP against the full & final payment of the aforesaid loan. Thereafter, he was again offered another loan by the OPs to the tune of Rs.44,100/- in the month of March, 2006, which was to be repaid in 18 EMIs of Rs.2744/- each i.e. Rs.44,100/- as the Principal amount and Rs.5292/- as interest charges totalling Rs.49,392/-. He paid Rs.46,656/- as against Rs.49,392/- ie. Rs.2736/- short as he had already paid an excess amount of Rs.4650/- against the earlier loan and the OP was requested time & again especially on 18.10.2007 through a letter to refund the balance amount of Rs.1914/- after full & final payment of both the loans. But to his utter shock, the OP vide letter dated 14.1.2008 demanded Rs.16,089.65/- from him instead of refunding the excess amount of Rs.1914/-. He even attended the conciliation proceedings on 21.4.2008, on the asking of the OP and explained the entire position & had also handed over all the relevant documents to the officials of the OP, but to no avail. During the re-conciliation proceedings, he had learnt that some amount was debited to his account towards ICICI Lombard Insurance Policy, for which he never gave his consent/confirmation. He even represented against this illegal action to the OP on 28.05/2008, but to no avail and the OP Bank was bent upon to recover the said amount of Rs.16,089.65P from him. Infuriated by the indifferent and stubborn attitude of the OP, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 29.9.2008 on the OP, which also failed to fetch the desired results. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund the excess debited amount of Rs.1914/-, along with compensation of Rs.4.50 lacs for mental agony, prolonged harassment and lowering his image in society and disturbance to him even at odd hours by the OP.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking their version of the case.

3]      OP in its written statement, pleaded that the Credit Card in question was issued on the request of the Complainant and was utilized by him. While admitting the availing of first loan by the Complainant, it was denied that he had made any excess payment of Rs.4650/- to the Bank. As on 21^st August, 2006, he was still liable to pay an amount of Rs.5690.24/-. No complaint in respect of any excess amount paid by him was ever made by him to the Bank. Availing of the second loan by the Complainant has also been admitted. It was pleaded that he had not been paying the EMI amounts regularly and was thus liable to pay overdue charges in respect of the same. Even the second loan was not paid in full and the Bank was rightfully demanding its dues. Further, even when the Complainant came for conciliation, he was given detailed accounts statement and was requested to clear the outstanding dues, which he failed to do. It was also denied that the Complainant became aware of the usage of credit card towards the insurance policy only in the reconciliation meeting. In fact, it was in the year 2006 itself, that he was fully aware of the payment of the amount towards the premium of the insurance policy which was said to have been issued in his name. All other material contentions of the Complainants were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint/ written statement and all other relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OP. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having been issued the Credit Card No. 4477 4604 5492 4004 by the OP Bank and his availing a loan of Rs.31,500/- in the month of August, 2004, repayable in 24 EMIs of Rs.1509.38/- each, have all been admitted. The contention of the Complainant is that while paying the EMIs, he had inadvertently paid a sum of Rs.4650/- in excess to the OP, against full and final settlement of the aforesaid loan.  It is also a fact that the Complainant availed another loan from the OP Bank in March, 2006, which was repayable in 18 EMIs of Rs.2744/- each i.e. the total of Rs.44,100/- as the principal amount and Rs.5292/- as interest charges, totaling Rs.49,392/-. Instead of paying this amount, he paid Rs.46,656/- to the OP i.e. he paid Rs.2736/- short on the assumption that he had already paid an excess amount of Rs.4650/- against the earlier loan and on that basis, he requested the OP on 18.10.2007, for making the refund of the balance amount of Rs.1914/-, after full and final payment of both the loans.

ii] The Complainant further says that instead of settling both the loan accounts and refunding him the excess amount of  Rs.1914/-, the OP further demanded a sum of Rs.16089.65/- on 14.1.2008, which came to him as a shock, as according to him, he had not only repaid both the loans in full, but also an excess amount of Rs.1914/-. Efforts were made by both the parties in the conciliation proceedings on 21.4.2008, but nothing came out of this effort. The Complainant says that only later he learnt that some amount was debited to his loan account towards ICICI Lombard Insurance Policy, for which he never gave his consent/confirmation and against which he also represented to the OP on 28.5.2008, but to no avail and the OP continued to demand Rs.16,089.65/-. All this prompted the Complainant to file this complaint. 

iii] All the pleadings of the Complainant have been denied by the OP saying that the Complainant had never made any excess payment of Rs.4650/- to the OP Bank and as on August 21, 2006, he was still liable to pay a sum of Rs.5690.24/-. It is further clarified by the OP that the Complainant had never made any complaint to it in respect of any excess amount said to have been paid by him to the OP Bank. It is admitted by the OP that the Complainant availed the 2^nd loan, but it is pleaded that he had not been paying the EMI amounts regularly and, therefore, he was liable to pay overdue/ late payment charges in respect of the delayed EMIs. Even the 2^nd loan was not paid in full and during conciliation, the Complainant was requested to clear the outstanding dues, which he did not do. Further, the Complainant was fully aware about the insurance policy issued to him even in the year 2006, and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to turn back later and say that he did not know about the insurance policy.

iv] During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Complainant was repeatedly asked about his detailed calculations in respect of the excess payment said to have been made by him to the OP Bank with regard to the 1^st loan availed by him, but he could not produce any such document. The learned counsel for the OP also confronted the learned counsel for the Complainant with the detailed statement of loan account, running into 29 pages and asked him to point out any mistake or discrepancy in the said statement, but he could not do so. So far as the allegation in respect of some unspecified amount said to have been debited by the OP, in respect of the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Policy is concerned, it was clarified by the learned counsel of the OP that on page 22 of the accounts statement, a sum of Rs.4132.70/- was credited to the loan account of the Complainant on 1.8.2006, which was duly accepted by him. Not only that as per the same page of the statement, the Complainant himself had received a Cheque of Rs.1810.00/- on 14.8.2006. In addition to the above two payments, the OP also passed two interest reversal entries for the sums of Rs.66.82/- and Rs.63.94/-. All these payments have been duly received by the Complainant. Hence, where is the question of the OP debiting his loan account on account of the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Policy or any other unauthorized/illegal debit. The Complainant has not been able to pinpoint any other discrepancy or an unauthorized debit to the loan account. On the contrary, the statement of loan account shows that payments for some of the EMIs in respect of both the loan accounts availed by the Complainant from the OP have been delayed, resulting into the payment of overdue interest/penalty in each such case.

6]      From the above detailed analysis of the case, it is quite clear that the Complainant has not been able to establish his case in respect of any deficiency of service or indulgence in any unfair trade practice on he part of the OP. So far as the refund of Rs.1914/- is concerned, there are no facts and figures available, showing that the refund was ever due to the Complainant as payable by the OP. It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever an EMI is not paid on the stipulated date, it results into not only payment of overdue interest, but also imposition of certain penalties, as per the agreement between the parties. Even, in the statement of loan account, submitted by the OP, there are no transactions after January, 2007, which means after January, 2007, the OP Bank might have levied the overdue/late payment charges, as well as penalties for not squaring up the 2^nd loan account in full by the Complainant. In any case, no calculations are on record produced by the Complainant, showing that the demand of Rs.16,089.65/- made by the OP is in any way wrong or illegal.

7]      Keeping in view the foregoings, it is our considered view that the present complaint is without any basis, devoid of merit and lacks substance. Therefore, it deserves rejection. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

8]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02.02.2010                                                                                                                             Sd/-                        

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                           Sd/-

                                   (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’