State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank Ltd., vs Mr.Ashok Dhanpal Sawalwade on 12 April, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMM CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI First Appeal no. 1629/2008 Date of Filing: 30/12/2009 Consumer Complaint No.914/2007 District Consumer Forum: Sangli Date of Order: 12/04/2010 ICICI bank Ltd., Appellant Sangli Branch, Rajashree Shahu (Org.Opp.Party) Arcade, City Survey no. 13501, Market Yard, Sangli Miraj Road, Sangli- 416 416. V/S Mr.Ashok Dhanpal Sawalwade, Respondent R/at- Kawanthpiran, (Org.Complainant) Tal Miraj Dist- Sangli. Quorum : Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mr.D.Khamatkar, Honble Member.
Present:
Adv.Mr.A.M.Puranik for appellant.
Adv.Mr.N.Walvekar for respondent :- ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member :
Heard. Appeal is admitted and heard forthwith with the consent of both the parties.
This appeal arises out of order dated15/07/2008 passed in consumer complaint no. 914/2007, Mr.Ashok Dhanpal Sawalwade V/s. ICICI bank Ltd passed by District Forum, Sangli.
It appears that impugned order was passed ex-parte since the appellant/bank remain absent after due service.
Undisputed facts are that complainant/respondent has opened a bank account with the appellant/org.opp.party( hereinafter referred as Bank). He had deposited two cheques bearing nos.908309 & 908310 total valued to Rs. 71,250 in the said account. However when those cheques were dishonored, the bank on its own extended the routine credit facility for the value of the said amount and accordingly temporary overdraft facility was given to the complainant. Subsequently, on 20/07/2007 the complainant again deposited Rs.9,500/- by a cheque in the said account. However, bank got it adjusted against the dues under the temporary overdraft facility. In view of this, as it is alleged, the cheque of Rs.8,000/- issued by the complainant in favour of third party got dishonored and bounced. It is the grievance of the complainant that he was not informed about dishonor of two initial cheques which were credited in his bank account. He was not informed about routine credit facility or temporary overdraft facility extended to him. He was also not informed about adjusting the amount of Rs.8,000/- credited on 20/07/2007 towards dues of floating credit or temporary overdraft facility. He was also not supplied the bank statement of accounts and under the circumstance, he claimed compensation by filing the consumer complaint. District Forum was pleased to direct refund of Rs.30,616/- which alleged to have been credited from the account of the complainant from time to time along with interest @12% p.a. till 30/08/2008. It also further directed Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the bank has preferred this appeal.
In the instant case in view of the undisputed facts that two cheques bearing nos. 908309 & 908310 amounting Rs.71,250/- were bounced and said amount has not been received by the bank. Subsequently, some credit to the extent of Rs.30,616 towards the overdraft facility or floating credit facility when adjusted by the bank, it cannot be faulted with. However, for the alleged breach, it would be totally wrong on part of District Forum to direct to refund of Rs.30,616 along with interest and thereby, helping customer of the bank to receive something to which he is not entitled. When all developments were taking place and when total value to Rs.30,616 alleging to have been deposited by the complainant from time to time, it is rather surprising that complaint was sitting ideal and never bother to appraise himself about developments related to his account maintained with the bank. It appears that though initially credit facility was extended on their own by the Bank to the complainant, when cheques were bounced, bank was expecting some business from him and since the complainant did not develop this relationship with the bank the bank ultimately acted upon the way as in this case. In view of the facts brought on record and which are undisputed, it is the complainant at the wrong end. Under these circumstances, we find impugned order is erroneous can not be supported with. There is no deficiency in service on the pary of the bank as far as adjustment of the amount is concerned. However, not supplying the account statement and not informing the complainant from time to time about the development of account particularly, adjustment carried by the bank, there is deficiency in service on the part of the bank but for which hefty compensation, in the background of the circumstances, cannot be granted. Therefore, we wish to interfere in the impugned order in the light of discussion we held above. We hold accordingly, and pass the following order:-
:-ORDER-:
1.
Appeal is partly allowed.
2. Impugned order dated 15/07/2008 is partly modified.
3. The direction given in para 1 of the operative part of the impugned order directing bank to pay Rs.30,616/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. is set aside.
4. In para 2 of the impugned order in spite of Rs.50,000/- said amount be substituted with figure of Rs.10,000/-
5. Rest of the order stands confirmed
6. Parties shall bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules.
(D.N. Khamatkar) (S.R.Khanzode) Member Presiding Judicial Member Nbh