State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Bimal Kumar Sonthalia vs Icici Bank Ltd. & Ors. on 22 May, 2013
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND
FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/193/2012
(Arising out
of order dated 14.03.2012 of Consumer Case No. 357/2008 of D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata,
Unit I)
Date of Filing : 30.04.2012 Date of Final Order : 22.05.2013
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
Sri Bimal Kumar Sonthalia,
133, Tilak Road, District Burdwan,
Pin 713347
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
1. ICICI Bank Ltd.
3A, Gurusaday
Road,
Kolkata 700 019.
2. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank
Ltd., APG Dept., 1st Floor, Plot No.
793, Murgasol, Usha Gram,
Asansol, District Burdwan,
Pin 713303.
3. Sri Sukanta Ganguly, ICICI Bank
Ltd., RAPG Office, 1st Floor, Plot No.
793, Murgasol, Usha Gram,
Asansol, District Burdwan,
Pin 713303.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas
Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Sri S. Coari.
MEMBER : Smt. Mridula Roy.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Md. Adnan Ahmed,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Ms. S. Roy Chowdhury,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgement and order being No. 36 dated 14.03.2012 passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata, Unit I in CC Case No. 357/2008 allowing the petition of complaint in part on contest against the O.Ps with cost directing the O.Ps to let the Complainant know the amount towards one time settlement together with interest and on receipt of the said offer from the O.P. Bank, Complainant must make payment of the entire sum once at a time and on receipt of the said sum the O.P. Bank will issue no due certificate in favour of the Complainant and all these orders have to be complied by the parties to the case within 45 days from the date of their knowledge, further directing the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.8,000/- only for harassment and mental agony and to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- within 45 days from the date of communication of the order i.d. an interest @ 9% per annum shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the Complainant till full realization.
Being dissatisfied with the order the Complainant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.
The case of the Complainant before the Ld. District Forum, is that, he obtained a car loan to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing a vehicle. The said loan was repayable in 35 Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI).
The Complainant deposited 35 post dated cheques out of which some were drawn on Bank of India, Raniganj Branch and rest on Syndicate Bank, Raniganj Branch in favour of the O.P. Financier enabling them to recover the loan amount from the Complainant on time. But the Bank alleged that some cheques were dishonoured and, therefore, putting the Complainant as a defaulter. All on a sudden the Complainant got a demand notice from the O.P. Financier alleging successive default in making payment claiming immediate payment of Rs.17,410/- towards outstanding dues. In reply, the Complainant sent a letter dated 31.10.2006 stating that he was maintaining sufficient balance in his account and seven number of cheques were already honoured in respect of the said account.
Subsequently, the O.Ps again sent a letter dated 31.05.2007 claiming Rs.8,705/- towards outstanding dues instead Rs.17,410/- as mentioned in their demand notice dated 30.09.2006. Further, in letter dated 12.09.2007 the O.Ps tendered apology to the Complainant stating that due to some technical difficulties cheque bearing No. 318603 for an amount of Rs.8,705/- could not be honoured.
However, on 26.06.2008 the Complainant along with his family members were travelling from Raniganj to Asansol. At about 03.20 p.m. a stranger named Saraj Chowdhury accompanied with some miscreants amongst whom one claimed himself as Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Murgasole Branch and the said fellow asked the Complainant to get down from the vehicle. As the Complainant and his family members got down from the said car the miscreants fled away with the key of the vehicle. Before leaving the spot the said miscreants snatched the Mangal Sutra of the sister-in-law of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant lodged an FIR against the miscreants with the Asansol P.S. being No. 184 of 2008 dated 09.07.2008 under Section 441, 323, 506, 379, 34 IPC. Therefore, the Complainant approached the O.Ps for one time settlement regarding repayment of the car loan, but the O.Ps told the Complainant to pay huge amount of interest for the outstanding. Accordingly, on 10.09.2008 the O.Ps sent a demand notice asking the Complainant to pay Rs.30,257/-. The Complainant alleged that since then the O.Ps had been threatening him without any interruption. Hence, he filed the petition of complaint before the Ld. District Forum praying for direction upon the O.Ps to withdraw the impugned letter dated 10.09.2008 with immediate effect and not to raise any demand with respect of the aforesaid loan amount of the Complainant without ascertaining the fate of the cheques given by the Complainant for payment of EMI towards repayment of the loan, to handover a copy of the loan document to the Complainant forthwith, to intimate the Complainant the one time settlement amount towards the entire repayment of the loan without any added penalty, to pay an amount of Rs.,10,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
The O.Ps appeared and contested the case by filing W. V. stating, inter alia, that the Complainant made breach of terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed by the Complainant and the O.P. Financier. The O.Ps specifically stated that the Complainant did not maintain sufficient balance in his bank account and, as a result, some cheques were dishonoured.
The O.Ps further stated that for recovery of money they sent notices to the Complainant and, therefore, the version of attempt of forceful repossession of the hypothecated vehicle or snatching of mangal sutra allegedly belonging to the sister-in-law of the Complainant was totally false. According to the O.Ps, that they had no deficiency in providing service to the Complainant, therefore, the petition of complaint should be dismissed.
DECISION :
Admittedly, while taking loan from the Respondent Bank the Appellant/Complainant executed Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the Bank in respect of the vehicle. Accordingly, the loan amount was disbursed in favour of the Appellant. The said loan was repayable by 35 instalments as stipulated in the agreement. The Appellant Complainant deposited 35 numbers of post dated cheques to the Respondent O.P., Financier so that the payable amount could be realized by encashing the same at scheduled point of time.
The Appellant Complainant claimed to have maintained sufficient fund in his bank account, but the Respondent O.P., Financier claimed that some cheques were dishonoured by the Bank for which the Appellant Complainant should pay the required amount.
Accordingly, the Respondent served a demand notice dated 30.09.2006 upon the Appellant demanding immediate payment of Rs.17,410/- by the Appellant. The Appellant did not pay the said amount. In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that there is no proof of dishonour of cheques since the Respondent furnished no statement of accounts wherefrom the fate of the alleged dishonoured cheques would have been revealed.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant further submitted that while the Appellant accompanied with some of his family members was travelling from Raniganj to Asansol, the Respondent Financier sent hooligans for forceful repossession of the vehicle towards the debt recovery measure which caused tremendous harassment to the Complainant as well as his family members for which the Appellant was entitled to be sufficiently compensated. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, Ld. District Forum was erroneous in considering the quantum of compensation. In support of his contention the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant cited following rulings :
(1) II (2008) CPJ 233 Tapan Bose vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors.
(2) II (2008) CPJ 244 Praveen Mehta vs. Delhi Development Authority.
(3) 2009 (3) CPJ 205 (NC) M/s. Capital Trust Limited vs. Sanjay Dutt & Ors.
(4) II (2005) CPJ 327 Citicorp Finance Ltd.
vs. S. Vijay Laxmi.
(5) 2007 (3) CPR 191 (NC) Citicorp Finance Ltd. vs. S. Vijay Laxmi.
(6) Citicorp Finance Ltd. vs. S. Vijay Laxmi Supreme Court on Nov. 2011.
(7) Manager ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaur & Ors. on 26 Feb. 2007.
(8) Gaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh. Supreme Court on 17 March, 2004.
In course of agreement Ld. Advocate for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant defaulted in making payment on several occasions. The Respondent could furnish the statement of accounts as and when it was required.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent further submitted that there was no proof of attempt of snatching the vehicle by the hooligans as the Appellant alleged.
The Appellant Complainant emphasized on enhancement of compensation amount. In fact, compensation should be assessed in accordance with the quantum of injury suffered by the person concerned. In view of that and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of considered opinion that the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in passing order in respect of compensation. There is no ground to enhance the compensation. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, ordered that the appeal is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement is confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT