Date of Filing: 17.04.2009<br /> Date of Order: 17.03.2010<br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 17th DAY OF MARCH 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. Nagarale, B.A, LL.B.(Spl.), President<br /> Smt.D. Leelavathi, M.A., LL.B., Member<br /> Sri. Balakrishna. V. Masali, B.A., LL.B.(Spl.), Member<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NOs. 895 & 896 OF 2009<br /> Sri. Jagadish,<br /> Major, S/o. Late Dr. Hanumappa,<br /> No.7, Walton Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 001. …. Complainant.<br /> <br /> -V/s-<br /> <br /> The ICICI Bank Limited,<br /> Head Office,<br /> Opposite Mayo Hall,<br /> Commissariat Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 001. …. Opposite Party.<br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> These two cases are clubbed together for the common order since the parties to complaints are one and the same in both the cases and the facts and law involves in these two complaints are same, therefore these two complaints can be conveniently disposed-of by this common order. <br /> <br /> 2. The complainant Mr. Jagadish has filed complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act requesting that Opposite Party be directed to reschedule and restructure the repayment of the credit card loan amount by extending repayment period from 20 EMI’s to 60 EMI’s and he has also claimed other reliefs. The facts as stated by the complainant is that, he had taken credit cards from Opposite Party Bank. He had given representation to the Opposite Party requesting to reschedule and restructure the time of payment. Due to sudden death of complainant’s brother he is not able to pay the EMI’s. The complainant submitted that he has surrendered the credit card to the Opposite Party by the letter dated: 03.03.2009. He has stated that similarly situated 50,000 applicants case is considered for rescheduling and restructuring by the respective banks. Non-consideration of complainant’s case amounts to deficiency of service. The Opposite Party has to consider the representation of the complainant with regard to the credit card loan. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The Opposite Party filed defence version stating that the complaint is misconceived, it is devoid of merits and the same is not maintainable in law. It is submitted that the complainant is due in a sum of Rs.2,28,129.92 as on 08.06.2009. The complainant is not entitled for any relief. The complainant being a defaulter cannot seek the protection from the hands of Honorable Forum. The complainant has requested the Opposite Party to consider the repayment schedule by extending the tenure. Interest is charged as per the prime lending rate as prescribed by the RBI. For all the reliefs stated above in the version the Opposite Party has requested for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and also the written arguments. I have gone through the pleadings, the affidavit evidences, documents and the written arguments submitted by both the parties.<br /> <br /> 5. In the light of the arguments submitted by the parties the following points are for my consideration:-<br /> (1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?<br /> <br /> (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings on the above points are in the Negative for the following:-<br /> REASONS<br /> POINT Nos.1 & 2:-<br /> 7. It is the admitted case of the complainant that he has taken credit cards from the Opposite Party Bank. It is also admitted that he had kept huge arrears in respect of his credit card account. The complainant has made representation to the Opposite Party bank requesting to reschedule the term of repayment from 20 EMI’s to 60 EMI’s. The complainant submitted that due to sudden death of his brother he has not able to pay the EMI’s as stipulated. Therefore he had requested the Bank for restructuring and extending the term of repayment. The complainant has surrendered the credit cards to the Opposite Party. As per the Opposite Party the complainant is a defaulter and he is having huge arrears on his credit cards. Therefore there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant has not established by producing cogent and acceptable evidence to prove deficiency of service rendered by the Opposite Party Bank. If at all the complainant has submitted the representation to the Bank it is left to the Bank to consider the representation of the complainant in a more practical and pragmatic manner. The complainant being a customer of the Opposite Party Bank; the Bank should consider the representation of the complainant in a more realistic manner so that it will benefit both the parties. Consumer Protection Act is a social legislation intended to protect a better interest of the consumers. There is nothing wrong to consider the representation of the complainant in a more progressive and realistic manner. The complainant has come forward to make payments of the arrears; he wants extension of payment period from 20 EMI’s to 60 EMI’s. If this facility or benefit is extended to the complainant definitely it will help him in discharging the loan amount. The Opposite Party will also be benefited and it will get the amount from the complainant. Otherwise Opposite Party has to file suit for recovery of the amount and that will again prolong the matter. The complainant will be free to take all defences which will be available to him in the Civil suit. Instead of going for another round of litigation it is better that Opposite Party should consider the representation of the complainant suitable to both the parties. So that justice will be done to complainant. However there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party, but there is nothing wrong to consider the representation of the complainant and settle the issue with the complainant in a harmonious manner. This is a fit case to settle the outstanding issues with the complainant by negotiations and one to one talk and discussion. The intervention of the Forum is not necessary. The complainant will be fee to approach the Opposite Party Bank and settle the issues by negotiations and discussion. Since the credit cards have been surrendered there are no present transactions the question is only about the payment of arrears, now it is up to the Opposite Party Bank as to how it is going to get the arrears by legal means. The Opposite Party admittedly has not yet filed Civil Suit against the complainant for recovery of the amount. Therefore it is still open to the parties to settle the issues amicably; in case if the Opposite Party files civil suit against the complainant for recovery of amount in that case the complainant will be having full and complete opportunity to take all the defences available to him. The complainant will free to take the issues which he has raised in this complaint in the Civil Suit. Ultimately the Civil Court will decide the matter. The complainant even will be free to move the matter with the Banking Ombudsman for settlement of all his issues raised here in this complaint. The RBI has constituted Banking Ombudsman for settlement of disputes between the customers and the Banks. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> 8. Both the complaints are Dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> 9. The original of this order shall be kept in Case No.895/2009 and a true copy thereof shall be kept in Case No.896/2009.<br /> <br /> 10. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th DAY OF MARCH 2010.<br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />