Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/09/95

Sreeharshan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

15 Mar 2010

ORDER


ReportsConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 95
1. SreeharshanSunitha bhavan, Plamoottukkada p.o., NeyyaattinkaraKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. The ManagerI.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd, Statue TvpmKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 15 Mar 2010
ORDER

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.

 


 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 95/2009 Filed on 06.05.2009

Dated : 15.03.2010

Complainant:

Sreeharshan. V, Sunitha Bhavan, Plamoottukada P.O, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.


 

(By adv. V.A. Jayaraj)

Opposite party:

The Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.


 

This O.P having been heard on 03.03.2010, the Forum on 15.03.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

The grievance of the complainant is as follows: Complainant availed a car loan from the opposite party as Loan No. LATVM-00007652263 and he is regularly paying the EMI every month from 2006 onwards and EMI is Rs. 5,486/- and the vehicle No. is KL-21-1915 Tata Indica Car. Complainant has paid 31 instalments without any default. Complainant when enquired about the balance amount and the statement of accounts, the opposite party is hesitating to provide them. On enquiry, he came to understand that the opposite party is levying unnecessary hidden charges from the complainant. Complainant has repaid more than 3 lakhs of rupees to the opposite party and the opposite party is threatening the complainant and the complainant apprehends that the opposite party will resort to illegal means to recover unnecessary charges. The aforesaid act of the opposite party is a deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and imperfection in the quality, manner and performance of service after accepting consideration making it liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has approached the opposite party for a settlement of accounts which has been denied by the opposite party. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party to provide statement of accounts along with such other reliefs.

 

Inspite of service of notice from the Forum, the opposite party never appeared before the Forum nor has filed their version. Hence the opposite party has been set exparte.


 

Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination.


 

From the pleadings the only aspect for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint.


 

The point:- Complainant has affirmed that he had availed a car loan from the opposite party and he has been paying the EMI regularly every month from 2006 onwards. According to the complainant, he has paid more than 3 lakhs of rupees to the opposite party. Besides the said pleading, the complainant has not furnished any documents showing the payment of EMI regularly from 2006 onwards. But in the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the No. of the said loan availed is LA TVM-00007652263 and that of the vehicle as KL-21-1915 Tata Indica Car.


 

Despite service of notice, the opposite party never turned up to deny any allegations levelled against them. In the light of the above circumstance and in the strength of the affidavit of the complainant, it is found that the complainant is entitled to get the statement of accounts from the opposite party.


 

On 06.05.2009, this Forum had passed an order restraining the opposite party from forcibly taking the vehicle from the custody of the complainant till the disposal of the complaint. As the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint, we hereby extend this order till one month from the date of issuance of the statement of accounts to the complainant. Hence the opposite party is directed not to repossess the vehicle till one month from the date of issuance of the statement of accounts to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall issue the statement of accounts to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to compensation and costs.


 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of March 2010.


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

 


 

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT


 


 

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER


 

 


 


 


HONORABLE President, PresidentHONORABLE Sri G. Sivaprasad, PRESIDENTHONORABLE Smt. Beena Kumari. A, Member