BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No: 178/2008 Filed on 7/8/2008 Dated : 30..03..2009

Complainants:

1. Janardhana Iyer, S/o Ramaswamy, T.C.22/747, Gokulam, Attukal, Manacaud-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Jayalekshmi, D/o Subbhalekshmi, residing at ..do..

(By Adv. K. Radhakrishnan)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., ICICI Bank, opp. A.G.'s Office, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. General Manager/Managing Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. P.O.Box 10099, G.P.O., Mumbai – 400 001.

(By Adv. Koliacode K. Rajeev)

This O.P having been heard on 04..02..2009, the Forum on 30..03..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:

The 1^st complainant is the husband of the 2^nd complainant. The 2^nd complainant had availed a Home loan as per loan agreement No.LB Tvm 00000 351133 amounting to Rs.3,87,546/- on 28/2/2003, that the 2^nd complainant had availed a supplementary loan of Rs.1,00,000/- as per loan agreement No. LB Tvm 00000 351134 on 1/3/2003. In both loans the 1^st complainant is the co-applicant. As per the above said loan agreements the complainants have to repay the entire loan amount with interest subject to variation from time to time. The complainants were directed to remit Rs.7,228/- through post dated cheques. The entire loan amounts with interest have to be repaid by 98 EMIS. Accordingly, the 1^st complainant issued his post-dated cheques for remittance of EMI. The 2^nd complainant entrusted in advance the EMI in the hands of 1^st complainant for the purpose of remittance and accordingly the 1^st complainant deposited such cash in the bank in time and always maintained sufficient balance in his account, to honour cheques drawn in favour of opposite party bank, and issued post dated cheques to the opposite parties. In the meantime the opposite parties intimated the complainants that the cheque No.199006 dated 7/11/2003 for Rs.5,729/- drawn on Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank, Fort Branch, Thiruvananthapuram was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds as per their statement dated 13/6/2005 issued to the complainants. They have shown bounce charge as Rs.200/- and over due charge as Rs.229/- for the dishonour of the said cheque in the said statement. There was sufficient credit balance in the account of the 1^st complainant and the opposite parties encashed the said cheque on 19/11/2003 and it is seen that the amount was credited in the accounts of complainant on 27/2/2004. The opposite parties misrepresented facts and cheated the complainants. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties which caused them undue hardship, financial loss and injury. The 1^st complainant stated that he had maintained sufficient credit balance in his account to honour the cheques. But only to harass and cause irreparable injury and loss to the complainant the opposite parties without producing the cheques on due dates before the bank for encashment informed the complainants, that the cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and issued statement regarding the same. Without doing their duties and services to the complainants the opposite parties harassed the complainants on several ways and attained unlawful gains and undue advantage. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties created problems in the family life of the complainants also. Hence this complaint, the complainants claim Rs.3,00,000/- for their mental strain and pain.

2. In this case the opposite parties ICICI bank remained ex-parte.

The 1^st complainant filed proof affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of 2^nd complainant, who is the wife of the 1^st complainant. From the side of complainants 14 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P14.

3. Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs and costs sought for?

4. Points (i) & (ii) : The affidavit filed by the complainants in this case stands unchallenged. The opposite parties never turned up to contest the case. The allegation of the complainants against the opposite parties are that there was sufficient credit balance in his account to honour the cheques, but there was deliberate latches and willful default on the part of opposite parties in producing the cheques on due dates for collection of payment. Without doing their duties and service to the complainants the opposite parties harassed the complainants on several ways and attained unlawful gains and undue advantage. To prove their allegations the complainants have produced 14 documents. Ext.P1 is the statement of account from 13/6/2003 to 13/6/2005 issued by the opposite parties' bank. Ext.P2 is the payment receipt issued by the opposite parties. Ext.P3 is the copy of advocate's notice dated 7/6/2005 issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party. Ext.P4 is the reply notice sent by the opposite parties through this letter the opposite parties apologized to the complainant for their mistake. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties intimating the matter that he want to close his account with the opposite parties' bank. Exts. P6 to P9 are the statement of accounts of loan. Ext.P10 is the payment receipt of Rs.5,764/- issued by the opposite parties. Ext.P11 is the payment receipt of Rs.3,003/- issued by the opposite parties. Ext.P12 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party on 7/5/2008 before filing this complaint. Exts. P13 & P14 are the copy of notice with statement issued by the complainants to the opposite parties on 16/6/2008.

5. On a careful perusal of these documents we have found that the allegations levelled against the opposite parties are true. The opposite parties charged bounce charge and overdue charges against the complainants even though there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainants in the alleged dates. The complainants filed detailed schedule regarding the same. From the Ext.P4 document we can see that the complainant has sufficient amount to honour the cheque on due dates. But the opposite parties intimated the complainants that the cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. But statement of the opposite parties are not true, the documents shown that on 7/1/2005, 7/3/2005, 7/4/2005, 7/5/2005, 7/6/2005, 7/8/2005, 7/11/2004, 7/12/2004, 7/3/2005, 7/4/2005, 7/5/2005 & 7/8/2005. There was sufficient balance in the account of the complainants, but the opposite parties charged bounce charge and overdue charges from the complainants. Through these transactions the opposite parties unlawfully obtained Rs.4,033/- from the complainants. It is very clear from the documents and evidences adduced by the complainants that there was willful default from the side of opposite parties. Without doing their duties and services carefully they harassed the complainants and attained unlawful gains and undue advantage. Moreover in this case the complainants several times requested to clarify the defects made by the opposite parties. They acted against all provisions of law and natural justice. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. In this case the complainants have succeeded to prove his case with sufficient documents and clear calculation. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result the 2^nd opposite party is directed to refund Rs.4,033/- (Rupees Four thousand and thirty three only) additionally charged from the complainants to the opposite parties and direct the 2^nd opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the damages caused to the complainants on account of the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice to the complainants and also direct the 2^nd opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month thereafter 12% annual interest also shall be paid to the above said amounts.

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 30^th day of March, 2009.

BEENA KUMARI.A

MEMBER.

G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

ad.

CC.178/2008

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness: NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of statement of accounts from 01/04/2003 to (9pages) 22/9/2005.

P2 : Receipt No.0946264 dt. 27/5/2005 for Rs.5729

Receipt No. 0946265 dt. 27/5/2005 for Rs.1,499/-

P3 : Copy of advocate notice dt. 7/6/2005

P4 : Copy of letter dt. June 18, 2005 issued by opp. Party

P5 : Registered letter dated 22/3/2008 to the complainant

P6 : Photocopy of statement showing the Accrual of overdue and (11pages) bounce charges

P7 : Photocopy of account statement from 22/2/2003 to

(11pages) 11/6/2008

P8 : Copy of letter to the complainant issued by opp. Party

P9 : " dt. 3/6/2008

P10 : Customer copy of original payment receipt No.O-0508- 5838136 dt. 7/6/2008

P11 : " No.O-0508-5838135 dt. 7/6/2008

P12 : Copy of letter dated 7/5/2008 issued opp. Party by the complainant.

P13 : Copy of Regd letter dt. 16/6/2008 issued to opp. Party by the complainant with acknowledgment card and postal receipt dt. 16/6/2008

P14 : " dt. 16/6/2008 "

3. Opposite parties' witness NIL

4. Opposite parties documents: NIL

    

PRESIDENT

ad.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No: 178/2008 Filed on 7/8/2008 Dated : 30..03..2009

Complainants:

1. Janardhana Iyer, S/o Ramaswamy, T.C.22/747, Gokulam, Attukal, Manacaud-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Jayalekshmi, D/o Subbhalekshmi, residing at ..do..

(By Adv. K. Radhakrishnan)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., ICICI Bank, opp. A.G.'s Office, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. General Manager/Managing Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. P.O.Box 10099, G.P.O., Mumbai – 400 001.

(By Adv. Koliacode K. Rajeev)

This O.P having been heard on 04..02..2009, the Forum on 30..03..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:

The 1^st complainant is the husband of the 2^nd complainant. The 2^nd complainant had availed a Home loan as per loan agreement No.LB Tvm 00000 351133 amounting to Rs.3,87,546/- on 28/2/2003, that the 2^nd complainant had availed a supplementary loan of Rs.1,00,000/- as per loan agreement No. LB Tvm 00000 351134 on 1/3/2003. In both loans the 1^st complainant is the co-applicant. As per the above said loan agreements the complainants have to repay the entire loan amount with interest subject to variation from time to time. The complainants were directed to remit Rs.7,228/- through post dated cheques. The entire loan amounts with interest have to be repaid by 98 EMIS. Accordingly, the 1^st complainant issued his post-dated cheques for remittance of EMI. The 2^nd complainant entrusted in advance the EMI in the hands of 1^st complainant for the purpose of remittance and accordingly the 1^st complainant deposited such cash in the bank in time and always maintained sufficient balance in his account, to honour cheques drawn in favour of opposite party bank, and issued post dated cheques to the opposite parties. In the meantime the opposite parties intimated the complainants that the cheque No.199006 dated 7/11/2003 for Rs.5,729/- drawn on Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank, Fort Branch, Thiruvananthapuram was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds as per their statement dated 13/6/2005 issued to the complainants. They have shown bounce charge as Rs.200/- and over due charge as Rs.229/- for the dishonour of the said cheque in the said statement. There was sufficient credit balance in the account of the 1^st complainant and the opposite parties encashed the said cheque on 19/11/2003 and it is seen that the amount was credited in the accounts of complainant on 27/2/2004. The opposite parties misrepresented facts and cheated the complainants. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties which caused them undue hardship, financial loss and injury. The 1^st complainant stated that he had maintained sufficient credit balance in his account to honour the cheques. But only to harass and cause irreparable injury and loss to the complainant the opposite parties without producing the cheques on due dates before the bank for encashment informed the complainants, that the cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and issued statement regarding the same. Without doing their duties and services to the complainants the opposite parties harassed the complainants on several ways and attained unlawful gains and undue advantage. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties created problems in the family life of the complainants also. Hence this complaint, the complainants claim Rs.3,00,000/- for their mental strain and pain.

2. In this case the opposite parties ICICI bank remained ex-parte.

The 1^st complainant filed proof affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of 2^nd complainant, who is the wife of the 1^st complainant. From the side of complainants 14 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P14.

3. Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs and costs sought for?

4. Points (i) & (ii) : The affidavit filed by the complainants in this case stands unchallenged. The opposite parties never turned up to contest the case. The allegation of the complainants against the opposite parties are that there was sufficient credit balance in his account to honour the cheques, but there was deliberate latches and willful default on the part of opposite parties in producing the cheques on due dates for collection of payment. Without doing their duties and service to the complainants the opposite parties harassed the complainants on several ways and attained unlawful gains and undue advantage. To prove their allegations the complainants have produced 14 documents. Ext.P1 is the statement of account from 13/6/2003 to 13/6/2005 issued by the opposite parties' bank. Ext.P2 is the payment receipt issued by the opposite parties. Ext.P3 is the copy of advocate's notice dated 7/6/2005 issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party. Ext.P4 is the reply notice sent by the opposite parties through this letter the opposite parties apologized to the complainant for their mistake. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties intimating the matter that he want to close his account with the opposite parties' bank. Exts. P6 to P9 are the statement of accounts of loan. Ext.P10 is the payment receipt of Rs.5,764/- issued by the opposite parties. Ext.P11 is the payment receipt of Rs.3,003/- issued by the opposite parties. Ext.P12 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party on 7/5/2008 before filing this complaint. Exts. P13 & P14 are the copy of notice with statement issued by the complainants to the opposite parties on 16/6/2008.

5. On a careful perusal of these documents we have found that the allegations levelled against the opposite parties are true. The opposite parties charged bounce charge and overdue charges against the complainants even though there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainants in the alleged dates. The complainants filed detailed schedule regarding the same. From the Ext.P4 document we can see that the complainant has sufficient amount to honour the cheque on due dates. But the opposite parties intimated the complainants that the cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. But statement of the opposite parties are not true, the documents shown that on 7/1/2005, 7/3/2005, 7/4/2005, 7/5/2005, 7/6/2005, 7/8/2005, 7/11/2004, 7/12/2004, 7/3/2005, 7/4/2005, 7/5/2005 & 7/8/2005. There was sufficient balance in the account of the complainants, but the opposite parties charged bounce charge and overdue charges from the complainants. Through these transactions the opposite parties unlawfully obtained Rs.4,033/- from the complainants. It is very clear from the documents and evidences adduced by the complainants that there was willful default from the side of opposite parties. Without doing their duties and services carefully they harassed the complainants and attained unlawful gains and undue advantage. Moreover in this case the complainants several times requested to clarify the defects made by the opposite parties. They acted against all provisions of law and natural justice. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. In this case the complainants have succeeded to prove his case with sufficient documents and clear calculation. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result the 2^nd opposite party is directed to refund Rs.4,033/- (Rupees Four thousand and thirty three only) additionally charged from the complainants to the opposite parties and direct the 2^nd opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the damages caused to the complainants on account of the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice to the complainants and also direct the 2^nd opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month thereafter 12% annual interest also shall be paid to the above said amounts.

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 30^th day of March, 2009.

BEENA KUMARI.A

MEMBER.

G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

ad.

CC.178/2008

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness: NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of statement of accounts from 01/04/2003 to (9pages) 22/9/2005.

P2 : Receipt No.0946264 dt. 27/5/2005 for Rs.5729

Receipt No. 0946265 dt. 27/5/2005 for Rs.1,499/-

P3 : Copy of advocate notice dt. 7/6/2005

P4 : Copy of letter dt. June 18, 2005 issued by opp. Party

P5 : Registered letter dated 22/3/2008 to the complainant

P6 : Photocopy of statement showing the Accrual of overdue and (11pages) bounce charges

P7 : Photocopy of account statement from 22/2/2003 to

(11pages) 11/6/2008

P8 : Copy of letter to the complainant issued by opp. Party

P9 : " dt. 3/6/2008

P10 : Customer copy of original payment receipt No.O-0508- 5838136 dt. 7/6/2008

P11 : " No.O-0508-5838135 dt. 7/6/2008

P12 : Copy of letter dated 7/5/2008 issued opp. Party by the complainant.

P13 : Copy of Regd letter dt. 16/6/2008 issued to opp. Party by the complainant with acknowledgment card and postal receipt dt. 16/6/2008

P14 : " dt. 16/6/2008 "

3. Opposite parties' witness NIL

4. Opposite parties documents: NIL

    

PRESIDENT