State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.Araichiya Pillai, (Old No.5) New ... vs 1. Icici Bank Credit And Operations, ... on 8 August, 2013
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : HONBLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI PRESIDENT THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI JUDICIAL MEMBERF.A.NO.331/2011
(As against the order in CC.No.324/2007 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South) DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 A.Araichiya Pillai, (Old No.5) New No.9, Appar Street, M/s.Balasubramanian Ramaratnam Ram Nagar, Ambattur, Counsel for Chennai 600 053.
Appellant / Complainant
-vs-
1. ICICI Bank Credit and Operations, Represented by its Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd, P.O.Box No.7931, Thulsiwadi P.O. Mumbai 400 034.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd, Represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Registered Office, Land Mark Race Course Circle, Vadodara 390 007.
3. ICICI Bank Ltd, Credit Card Division, Represented by its Manager, M/s.S.Namasivayam 46, Gadhi Mandapam Road, Counsel for Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 085.
Respondents / Opp.parties The Appellant as the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and tension and to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant / complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.324/2007 dated 11.05.2010.
-2-This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 12.7.2013, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.
A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant having credit card facility from the opposite party using the same from June 2000 and during the year in 2003 in order to settle the out standing balance of the credit card dues he had arrived a full and final settlement for Rs.40,000/- against the balance of Rs.63,331.14 as on 18.10.2003 and when he settled the same by way of cheque on 13.11.2003 and on 5.2.2004 to Rs.25,000/- and when he approached for paying payment of balance of Rs.15,000/-, the opposite party refused to close the account by accepting the same and thereby filed a consumer complaint claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs.
3. The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant and stated that they never offered any one time settlement of Rs.40,000/- as contended by the complainant and after receiving the payment made by the complainant, there was a due of Rs.56,249.08 as on 29.2.2008.
4. The District Forum after an enquiry dismissed the complaint by coming to the conclusion that there was no onetime settlement as alleged by the complainant for Rs.40,000/- and since there was dues payable by the -3- complainant by accepting the contentions of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Forum the complainant contended in this appeal by stating that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complainant by not considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. We have heard both sides arguments in this appeal and perused the materials placed before us. It is the admitted case of both sides that on the date of claim of one time settlement for payment of Rs.40,000/- against the balance of Rs.63,331.14 was due payable by the complainant towards the credit card facilities availed. The contention of the complainant that the opposite parties agreed for one time settlement during the year 2004 as on 10.6.2004 and thereby he had paid initially Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on 13.11.2003 & 5.2.2004. Subsequently when he approached for a balance payment of Rs.15,000/- by way of giving two cheques for Rs.12,500/- and Rs.2500/- dated 10.6.2004 and 2.7.2004 for full and final settlement arrived at by both parties as alleged, but the same was not recorded. It is the specific denial of the opposite parties that there was no such one time settlement of Rs.40,000/- and whatever the amounts paid were given credit towards his account and thereby still a sum of Rs.56,249.08 was due as on 29.2.2008. To prove the same the complainant was not in a position to file any documents -4- issued by the bank for one time settlement for Rs.40,000/-. Even though his documents Ex.A2 to A13 would go to reveal that he had only going on addressing the opposite parties, expressing his inability to settle the entire loan amount and praying for full and final settlement to the extent of Rs.40,000/- or Rs.42,000/- and even after the alleged Ex.A6 written by him dated 10.6.2004 to the bank authorities he had stated that as on 8/2003 limited to Rs.40,000/- for full settlement for the period from 9/2003 to 3/2004 and sending the cheques for Rs.15,000/- and praying to settle for entire loan. He has addressed various letters to various managers of the opposite parties by name to various divisions and no letter positively issued by the bank was produced by the complainant. Even a legal notice under Ex.A14 dated 18.3.2006 was issued by the opposite party to the complainant claiming Rs.56,249/- as outstanding loan under Ex.B2 dated 29.6.2007 he was advised to approach the office, Anna Salai, Chennai to avoid Legal complications for the dues payable. From these documents it is clear that the opposite parties have not sent or issued any authorization letter for one time settlement for the payment of Rs.40,000/- during the year 2004 and if so the complainant could not have paid another sum of Rs.3,000/- towards loan due on 22.2.2005 as per Ex.A11. Hence the District Forum by taking into consideration of all the aspects and both sides materials came to the proper conclusion and dismissed the complaint on the basis of the same in which we find no error or illegality to interfere by way of allowing this appeal. Hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, -5- In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.324/2007, dated 11.05.2010.
There is no order as to costs in the appeal.
A.K.ANNAMALAI R.REGUPATHI (J) MEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX ; YES / NO VL/PJM/D/ ORDERS