State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank Ltd. vs Jaram Vir Singh Gupta on 24 May, 2022
FA - 588/2011 ICICI BANK LTD. V. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA D.O.D: 24.05.2022
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 22.02.2011
Date of hearing: 11.04.2022
Date of Decision: 24.05.2022
FIRSTAPPEAL NO.588/2011
IN THE MATTER OF
ICICI BANK LTD.
2ND FLOOR, VIDEOCON TOWER,
BLOCK E-1, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI
(Through: Hemant Gupta & Associates)
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
SH. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA,
F-9/10, MODEL TOWN -I,
DELHI -110009.
...RESPONDENT
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 10
FA - 588/2011 ICICI BANK LTD. V. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA D.O.D: 24.05.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE SH. RAJAN SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: None for the parties.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case necessary as per the District Forum record are:
"The Complainant had invested a sum of Rs.36,400/- in ICICI Bonds 1996 (Option Ashiwad Deep Discount Bond). The above bonds were to be redeemed on 15.07.2001 for a sum of Rs.77,000/-. The address of the investor is Shri S.K. Gupta R/o F-9/10, Model Town -I, Delhi -110009. It is alleged that the OP was supposed to send the bonds and subsequent correspondence to the aforesaid address; instead, they sent original bond as well as subsequence correspondence at wrong address i.e. E-9/10, Model Town-I, Delhi -110009. Therefore, neither original bond nor any subsequent correspondence except a letter dated 15.05.2008 was received by the Complainant. It is alleged that on account of the correspondence being mailed at an incorrect address, the bonds could not be encashed in time. It is therefore, alleged that the Complainant came to know that the correspondence was being sent at wrong address when the Postman delivered letter dated 15.05.2009 addressed at E-9/10, Model Town-I, Delhi - 110009 at the correct address of the Complainant i.e. F- 9/10, Model Town-I, Delhi -110009. The Complainant felt a rude shock on reading the letter wherein it had been mentioned that four reminders were sent by the Ops. The letter dated 15.05.2008 also carried out a threat that the redemption amount would be transferred to "investor education and protection fund" pursuant to Section 205C DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 10 FA - 588/2011 ICICI BANK LTD. V. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA D.O.D: 24.05.2022 of the Companies Act. The Complainant sent a letter dated 09.06.2008 informing the OP that his correct address if F- 9/10, Model Town - I, Delhi -110009 and further informed that neither original bonds nor subsequent reminders were received by him as they were being sent to incorrect address. The Complainant also requested the OPs to send him copies of the original bonds so that they may discharged. He received a letter dated 20.06.2008 from the OP to complete formalities like Indemnity Bond, Affidavit etc., which was duly complied with by him vide letter dated 17.09.2008. The Complainant received cheque of Rs.72,859/- dated 12.09.2008 from the OP. It comprised the face value of Rs.77,000/- less amount of TDS of Rs.4141/- deducted from the same. The Complainant wrote a letter dated 20.11.2008 asking the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,49,779/- as compensation for the period 16.07.2001 to 17.09.2008. The Complainant alleges that the OP was clearly deficient in providing service to him in as much as it had been corresponding at a wrong address which had resulted in the bond being redeemed on 12/17.09.2008 whereas it ought to have redeemed on 15.07.2001. He has alleged that he had suffered financial losses due to negligence of the OP. He, therefore, prayed that the OP be directed to pay an interest of Rs.1,45,779/- for the delay in redemption of the bonds. He also prayed that the OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment."
2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 02.09.2011, whereby it held as under:
"A perusal of the original application form clearly shows that the address of the Complainant was mentioned as F- 9/10, Model Town - I, Delhi -110009. The fact was also conceded to by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP. The original document was returned to the OP for being kept in its record. It is, therefore, clearly that the OP in order to avoid its liability had taken a false stand before this Forum that the address supplied to it was E-9/10, Model Town - I, DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 10 FA - 588/2011 ICICI BANK LTD. V. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA D.O.D: 24.05.2022 Delhi -110009. To make the matter worse, one of its Officer had filed an affidavit that the Complainant had supplied his address as E-9/10, Model Town - I, Delhi - 110009 in the Application Form. This was a deliberate act on the part of the OP and its officers to mislead the Forum. We are convinced that the OPs were grossly negligent in providing service to the Complainant rather than sending correspondence at the correct address viz. F-9/10, Model Town - I, Delhi -110009, the OP had directed the correspondence at E-9/10, Model Town - I, Delhi - 110009. It was expected of the OP to have conceded its fault before the Forum rather than concealing and trying to hide the truth. The photocopy filed alongwith the written statement was also tempered in such manner to show that the address on the application was E-9/10, Model Town - I, Delhi -110009. Deficiency on the part of the OPs is therefore, writ large in view of the facts proved in this case.
In the facts & circumstances of the case, we direct the OP as follows:
1. To pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,45,779/-
for the delay in payment of the redemption money of the bonds alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of this order to the date of its payment.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and agony suffered by him.
3. To deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. 5 lacs) with the State Consumer Welfare fund maintained at State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for having taken a false stand and having sworn a false affidavit before this Forum."
3. During the course of proceedings, it is noted that the parties settled the matter among themselves and the Appellant had also paid an amount of Rs. 1,06,913/- to the respondent as full and final settlement. However, the appellant had submitted that the matter was settled between the parties as this commission had verbally stated that the cost of Rs. 5 lacs, DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 10 FA - 588/2011 ICICI BANK LTD. V. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA D.O.D: 24.05.2022 which was imposed by the District forum for filing wrong affidavit, will be reduced to Rs. 50,000/- on such settlement.
4. On perusal of record before us, it is noted that vide order dated 13.02.2012, the operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to deposit of 1/4th of the decretal amount including the statutory amount in the shape of FDR. The said order has been provided hereunder for ready reference:
"13.02.2012 Present: Sh. Atul Jain, Proxy for Shri Hemant Gupta, Counsel for the Appellant.
Respondent in person.
Heard on admission. Admit. Copy of appeal papers supplied to the Respondent for filing written version.
The operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed pending appeal provided the appellant deposits 1/4th of the decretal amount, including statutory deposit, in the shape of FDR, before the Registrar of this Commission within one month from today.
Put up on 10th May, 2012 before Bench No.2."
5. It is noted from the record that the Appellant failed to comply with the aforesaid order of this commission. The appellant on query with respect to the deposit of FDR vide order dated 02.02.2022 had also failed to provide us any document to justify the said non-compliance.
6. It is further clear from the order dated 04.07.2017 that a settlement was arrived between the parties and the Appellant had paid a cheque of Rs.1,06,913/- to the Respondent. The DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 10 FA - 588/2011 ICICI BANK LTD. V. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA D.O.D: 24.05.2022 Order dated 04.07.2017 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"04.07.2017 Present: Sh. Amardeep Soni, Counsel for the Appellant.
Respondent in person.
It is stated that the parties have settled the matter.
In terms of settlement, a cheque of Rs.1,06,913/- has been given to respondent/complainant.
Respondent/Complainant states that with the aforesaid amount, the directions given to Appellant/OP at Serial No.1 and 2 of the impugned order stands satisfied.
In view of the above statement of the parties, the impugned order stands modified as regards directions given at Serial No.1 and 2 of the impugned order.
Re-list on 26.09.2017 for arguments as regard the relief given at Serial No.3 of the impugned order."
7. Now the only issue left for adjudication is whether the Appellant is guilty of misleading the court by filing a false affidavit and/or whether the District Forum was justified in imposing the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- upon the Appellant for filing false affidavit.
8. In this regard, it is contended by the Appellant that the concerned officer of the Appellant in its bonafide understood the address "F-9/10" to be "E-9/10" as the symbol (-) was attached with the alphabet "F" i.e. "F-" was inadvertently read by the deponent as "E". The relevant portion of the affidavit DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 10 FA - 588/2011 ICICI BANK LTD. V. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA D.O.D: 24.05.2022 filed on 26.02.2018 by the Manager Legal is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"6. That I say that the document filed as Annexure -I at Page No.59 of the Appeal paperbook is the document containing the address of the complainant/Respondent herein. As stated above, it is only the scanned image of the document which is available with the concerned officer of the appellant, the deponent in its bonafide understood the address "F-9/10' to be "E-9/10" as the symbol "-" as was attached with the alphabet "F" i.e. "F" was inadvertently read by the deponent as "E"
7. That the said mistake also occurred for the reason as the deponent was given the status by the Bank that the correct address was E-9/10 and F-9/10 and because of the said status/stand of the bank, the deponent in a bonafide impression filed an affidavit reiterating its stand that the address was E-9/10 and not F-9/10, which was duly supported by the stand of the appellant bank as received by the deponent through the concerned department.
8.......
9.......
10......
11. That at this stage, it came to the notice of all including the deponent that actually the correct address was "F-9/10" and not "E-9/10", which till DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 10 FA - 588/2011 ICICI BANK LTD. V. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA D.O.D: 24.05.2022 date the appellant as well as the deponent was in an impression due to which the aforesaid affidavit was also filed by the Deponent."
9. It is clear from the aforesaid that the Appellant had admitted that a wrong affidavit was filed before the District forum as the deponent misunderstood the address of the respondent "F- 9/10' to be "E-9/10. The counsel for the Appellant further contended that the said affidavit was filed on 26.02.2018 by Shri. Sanjay Sharma, Manager Legal of the Appellant on the direction of this commission vide order dated 31.01.2018. However, perusal of record shows that this Commission had never directed the Appellant to file an affidavit of the concerned officer and the said fact was further clarified by order dated 29.05.2018, which is provided hereunder for ready reference:
"29.05.2018 Present: Sh. Madhur Arora, Proxy for the Counsel for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
FA-588/11 Appellant has filed an affidavit of AR of the Appellant. It may be noticed that there are no direction to file any affidavit by this Commission. Put up for arguments on 03.12.2018"
10. It has been further contended by the appellant that upon verbal direction of this Commission that the penalty of Rs. 5 lacs will be reduced to Rs. 50,000/-, the appellant had settled the matter with the respondent. However, on perusal of record before us, we do not find from which we can verify the said contention DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 10 FA - 588/2011 ICICI BANK LTD. V. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA D.O.D: 24.05.2022 of the appellant. It is very difficult to ascertain as to what our Ld. Predecessor had directed without any submission/substance/evidence on record.
11. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the contentions raised by the Appellant are contrary to the record and clearly show the malafide conduct of the Appellant. It is also admitted by the appellant that a wrong affidavit had been filed before District forum due to inadvertent mistake. However, no cogent explanation has been given by the appellant for the same. Also, no reason has been given by the appellant for non- compliance of the order dated 13.02.2012.
12. In these circumstances, we fail to find any cause or reasons to reverse the findings of the District Forum as the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Consequently, we uphold the judgment dated 02.09.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-V (North West District), Delhi- 110088.
13. The order shall be complied with by the Appellant within 60 days after today, failing which the Registrar of this Commission is directed to get the order of this Commission executed and have the amount deposited from the Appellant/ICICI Bank with the State Consumer Welfare Fund maintained at State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alongwith interest @10% per annum.
14. Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 10 FA - 588/2011 ICICI BANK LTD. V. KARAM VIR SINGH GUPTA D.O.D: 24.05.2022
Another copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Registrar of this commission for follow up and take action in case of non- compliance. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (RAJAN SHARMA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
24.05.2022 DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 10