Tamil Nadu

Vellore

CC/11/11

T.NandhaKumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M.Kulothungan

15 Jul 2022

ORDER

                                                                                                      Date of filing :  09.05.2011

                                                                                      Date of order:  15.07.2022

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE, AT VELLORE DISTRICT

 

 PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L.    PRESIDENT                

                     THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.SC.,B.L.                  MEMBER- I

                     SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A.,  MEMBER -II

 

FRIDAY THE 15TH DAY OF  JULY 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 11/2011

Dr. T. Nandhakumar,

S/o. R. Thirunavukarasu,

No. 656, 42ndStreet, Phase – II,

Sathuvachari, Vellore – 9.                                                                …Complainant

 

-Vs-

1. The Manager,

    ICICI Bank Ltd.,

    Officer’s Line,

    Vellore – 1, Vellore District.

 

2. The Chief Manager,

    ICICI Bank Ltd.,

    Cash Management Services,

    Empire Institute Compound,

    414, Senapati Bapat Marg,

    Lower Parel (W),

    Mumbai – 400 013,

    Maharashtra.

 

3. Mr. Ibu Sam,

    Customer Service Executive,

    ICICI Bank Limited,

    ICICI Phone Banking Centre,

    ICICI Bank Tower, 7th Floor,

    Survey No. 115/27, Plot No.12,

    Nanakramguda,

    Serilingampally,

    Hyderabad – 500 032.                                                                                                                                                                                           …Opposite Parties

 

 

Counsel for complainant                 :  Thiru. M. Kulothungan

Counsel for first opposite party       :  Thiru. M. Sampathkumar

Second and third opposite parties  :  Set Exparte (12.03.2014 & 15.07.2014)

ORDER

THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L.  PRESIDENT,

This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Complainant has prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.15,158.32/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 10.02.2007, till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental shock and agony for the deficiency in service and to pay the cost of this proceedings.                  

 

1.  The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:

          The complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.42,500/- from the first opposite party on 11.02.2006.  The said loan had to be repaid by way of 12 equated monthly installments, from 10.03.2006 to 10.02.2007.  The monthly EMI was Rs.3789.58/-.  By oversight the complainant paid 16 EMIs, instead of 12 EMIs, so in excess, he paid 4 EMIs, amounting to Rs.15,158.32/-. On realizing the said mistake, the complainant requested the opposite party to refund the excess amount paid by him.  Inspite of several requests of the complainant, the first opposite party failed to refund the same.  Since there was no response from the first opposite party with regard to refund of the excess amount, the complainant sent a letter to the first and second opposite party.  Though the opposite parties received the letter, they did not respond.  But the opposite party on 27.12.2010, sent a letter to the complainant, admitting the excess amount paid by the complainant towards repayment of the personal loan.  However, they stated that the said excess amount, was adjusted towards the dues for the credit card used by the complainant.  Further the opposite party contented that after adjusting the said amount towards the dues in the Credit Card, the complainant was still liable to pay Rs.20,734.39 to the opposite parties.  But according to the complainant the transaction between Personal Loan and Credit Card are entirely different.  Further they contend, that the opposite party have no right to adjust the said excess amount with the Credit Card dues.

          The opposite party never raised the plea of lien over the excess amount.  Therefore, the acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of services and thus they are liable to pay compensation for mental shock and agony suffered by complainant.  And the opposite party is liable to refund the excess amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 10.02.2007. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice on 16.05.2010 to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties received the notice and failed to comply with the demands nor issued any reply.  Hence, this complainant.

 

2. The written version of first opposite party is as follows:

          It is true that the complainant availed a Credit Card facility from this opposite party.  While availing the Credit Card facility, the complainant had also applied for Personal Loan in the Credit Card issued to him.  This opposite party after having considered his application had sanctioned a loan of Rs.42,500/- on 11.02.2006, which was repayable in 12 months, for a monthly EMI of Rs.3,789.58/- each.  The complainant never mentioned any where in the complaint, about his Credit Card purchase.  Wherein complainant has made several purchases and had issued cheques for repayment of the outstanding.  Out of the aforesaid cheques a cheque amounting to Rs.1,598/- was returned on 31.05.2007 and two cheques amounting to Rs.17,000/- and Rs.673/- were returned and same would be clearly evidenced from the statement of accounts.  Since the cheques were returned on the grounds of technical reason, the same is observed in the statement of accounts as reversal.  Further the opposite party, in its letter dated 27.12.2010 clearly mentions, about the adjustment of excess payment that has been adjusted towards other purchase of things, through Credit Card by the complainant.  Even after the said adjustment, still there is outstanding on the complainant’s Credit  Card and in furtherance to that cheques issued by him have been returned as stated above.  Therefore, there is no excess payment to be refunded to the complainant as alleged in the complaint.  It is pertinent to state that after having adjusted the excess payment, the complainant owes a sum of Rs.20,734.39, towards the outstanding amount. The complainant’s doubts have been cleared then and there, over phone / email / letter and had adjusted the excess payment towards the purchase of other articles, even prior to filing this complaint.  Hence, there is no question of deficiency in service on part of this opposite party and thereby this opposite party need not pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental shock and agony.  For the foregoing reason this complaint is devoid of merit, no cause of action to file this complaint and same to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

         

3.     In this case, even though the notice was received by the second and third opposite parties from this Commission, they did not appear before this commission.  Several opportunities have been given.  There was no representation for the second and third opposite parties. Hence, the second and third opposite parties were called absent set exparte.

 

4.     Proof affidavit of complainant filed.  Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 were marked.  Proof affidavit of first opposite party filed. Ex.B1 were marked.  Written argument of complainant filed.  Written argument of first opposite party filed.  Both side oral arguments heard.

5. THE POINTS THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION ARE:    

          1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?  

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?

          3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

 

6. Point Nos.1&2:   The complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.42,500/- from the first opposite party on 11.02.2006.  The said loan was repayable for 12 EMIs from 10.03.2006 to 10.02.2007.  The monthly installment amount was Rs.3,789.58/-.  The crux of the issue is that the complainant had paid 16 EMI’s instead of 12 EMIs by oversight.  The excess payment made by complainant should have been refunded to the complainant.  But the opposite party did not refund the same.  Hence, the complainant filed this complaint for refund of the excess amount.  On the other hand, the opposite party though they are admitting that there was an excess payment as alleged by the complainant, and the same was adjusted towards the credit card dues of the complainant.  Admittedly the complainant made excess payment over and above the loan amount.  The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the personal loan transactions and credit card transaction are different transactions.  The opposite party have no right to adjust the excess payment made towards the personal loan, should not be adjusted towards the repayment of credit card dues, in the absence of any specific agreement to that effect. 

On the other hand, the counsel for the first opposite party submit that the complainant suppressed the Credit Card issued to him.  Further this personal loan itself is given based on the Credit Card only.  Therefore, the opposite party have the right adjust to the excess payment towards the Credit Card dues.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite party.

           Though the opposite party claims that they have a right to adjust the excess amount with the Credit Card dues, they have failed to produce any agreement to that effect.  Further when we go through the Ex. B1, the only document filed by the opposite party, we did not find any where in the statement, that the said excess amount of Rs.15,158.32/- was adjusted towards the Credit Card dues.  Thus it makes it clear that the opposite party have no right to adjust or retain the excess amount, without any consent or agreement at all.  If there are any dues in the credit card account the opposite party can very well file recovery of money if any, before the appropriate authority.  In the absence of loan or specific agreement to that effect. The opposite parties have no right to adjourn the said amount towards credit card dues. Hence these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.

 

7. Point No.3:          As we have decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties are hereby directed to refund the excess amount Rs.15,158/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Eight only) paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 10.02.2007 to till the date of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. This Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.

 

8.       In the result this complaint is partly allowed.  The first and second parties are hereby directed to refund the excess amount Rs.15,158/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Eight only) paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.  from  10.02.2007 to till the date of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)  as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the openCommission on this the 15thJuly, 2022.

      Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

   MEMBER –I                                    MEMBER – II                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-11.02.2006  -  Copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party with Amortization

                                  Schedule.

 

Ex.A2 -25.08.2006 -  Copy of the letter of request for Insurance cover.

Ex.A3–05.09.2006 -  Copy of the endorsement for cancellation of Insurance

Ex.A4-31.07.2008 -   Copy of the Letter issued by the Complainant to the first opposite

                                  party

 

Ex.A5 – 01.08.2008  - Copy of the Courier Receipt

Ex.A6 – 14.10.2009  - Copy of the letter issued by the Complainant to the first and

                                    second opposite Parties   with postal receipts

 

Ex.A7 – 16.10.2009  - Copy of the Postal Acknowledgements of Opposite party No.1

Ex.A8 – 16.05.2010  - Copy of the Registered Lawyer’s Notice

Ex.A9 – 03.06.2010  - Copy of the Postal Acknowledgement of Opposite Party No. 1

Ex.A10 -09.06.2010  - Copy of the Postal Acknowledgement of Opposite Party No.2

Ex.A11-30.07.2010  -  Copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party No. 3 to the

                                    Complainant.

 

Ex.A12-05.08.2010  -  Copy of the letter issued by the Complainant to the third

                                    Opposite Party.

 

Ex.A13-19.08.2010  -  Copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party No. 3 to the

                                    Complainant.

 

Ex.A14-23.09.2010  -  Copy of the letter issued by the Complainant to the third opposite

                                    party

 

Ex.A15-04.10.2010  -  Copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party No.3 to the

                                    Complainant.

 

Ex.A16 -24.11.2010 -  Copy of the Registered Lawyer’s Notice.

Ex.A17- 18.12.2010 -  Copy of the Postal Acknowledgement of Opposite Party No. 2.

Ex.A18                     -  Copy of the Postal Acknowledgement of Opposite Party No. 3.

Ex.A19-27.12.2010  -  Copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party No. 3 to the

                                    Complainant.

 

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:                                     

Ex.B1                        -   Statement of Accounts

        Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER – I                                            MEMBER – II                                         PRESIDENT

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.