State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Icici Bank Limited vs Gurpreet Singh S on 13 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH.
Appeal case No.73/2009
Date of institution:3.2.2009
Date of decision :13.11.2009
1.
ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI
Bank towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051.
2.
ICICI Bank Limited, SCO
No.180-182, Sector-9-C, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
.Appellants
V E R S U S
Gurpreet Singh S/o S.Baldev Singh, R/o H.No.108, Telephone Exchange
Colony, village Lohgarh, Zirakpur
.Respondent
Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against
order dated 14.11.2008 passed by
Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum-I,
U.T.Chandigarh.
Argued
by: Sh.Manish Jain , advocate for the appellants.
Sh.Deepak Aggarwal,
advocate for the respondent.
BEFORE : Honble
Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President
Maj.Gen. S.P.Kapoor (retd), Member
Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member
JUDGMENT
13.11.2009 Justice Pritam Pal, President
1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 14.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby the complaint filed by Sh.Gurpreet Singh, respondent /complainant was allowed in the following terms ;
In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to refund Rs.27,545/- which were overcharged as interest by them due to their own negligent act along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for mental and physical harassment and inconvenience caused to him in their hands. The Complainant is also held entitled to costs of litigation quantified at Rs.5500/-. The amount shall be paid by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, they would be liable to pay the same, along with penal interest at the rate 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.05.2008, till realization.
2.. The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ;
The Complainant was sanctioned Home Loan of Rs.4,82,886/-
by the OP Bank returnable in 72 equated monthly installments of Rs.9,504/- at the interest rate of 12.25% per annum with effect from April, 2007. After paying one EMI, the complainant approached OP bank and offered to pay back a major chunk of loan, which they accepted and received the cheque No.938889, dated 3.5.2007 for Rs.3,75,000/- issued from the account of his wife Mrs.Gursharam Kaur, who was also co-borrower in that loan. In the month of August, 2007 complainant came to know that his cheque for Rs.3,75,000/- was not adjusted in his loan account and still Rs.4,61,139/- was outstanding as principal amount. On further inquiry it was told to him that the said cheque of Rs.3,75,000/- was returned back by his banker but no reason for the same was given whereas there was sufficient balance in the account in the month of May/June, 2007 to honour the cheque in question. It was alleged that OP Bank had lost the cheque but deliberately given a wrong excuse. Thereafter, on the assurance of OPs that the amount shall be adjusted in his account alongwith interest from back date i.e. May, 2007, the complainant gave a fresh cheque bearing No.938890, dated 31.8.2007 , which was adjusted against his loan account from the month of Oct., 2007 only instead of May, 2007 as assured. It was alleged that OPs failed to reverse the interest for all these months inspite of his making several visits to their Bank. Even legal notice sent to the bank could not evoke any result and repayment schedule provided by OP bank showed that the complainant would have to pay Rs.39,839/- as interest. According to the complainant had OP bank cleared the first cheque on 3.5.2007 he would have to pay only Rs.12,294/- as interest and the loan would have been closed in month of April, 2008, but by not doing so, he had been wrongly burdened with Rs.27,545/-
as interest without any fault on his part.
Alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.
3. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the first cheque issued by the complainant was presented for encashment with his bankers, however, it was received back with the remarks referred to drawer and it was clarified to the complainant vide letter Annexure C-2. It was also submitted that the State Bank of India, with whom the said cheque was presented failed to explain the reason for non-encashment of the said cheque. The complainant after verifying the facts issued another cheque which was duly encashed and thereafter the OPs had stopped charging any interest. It was pleaded that the whole fault was of State Bank of India and not of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the file and hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties have come up in this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully. The learned counsel for appellants mainly argued that the cheque in question had been presented for encashment with the bankers of the complainant i.e. State Bank of India which had returned the cheque with the remarks Referred to drawer and the said bank failed to explain the reason for non-encashment of the cheque despite various requests and as such the fault, if any, was that of the State Bank of India and no deficiency could be attributed to the appellants. He further argued that the amount of cheque remained in the account of complainant, so he did not suffer any loss whereas the installment of loan was not paid in time, therefore appellants were justified in charging interest on delayed payment. At the fag end of his arguments, learned counsel for appellants also assailed the quantum of compensation on the ground that the amount of Rs.25000/- awarded to the complainant is on the higher side and being not based on any norms. However, these points of arguments have been repelled on behalf of the complainant.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions putforth on behalf of the parties. It is an admitted fact that the cheque in question was deposited by the complainant with appellants on 3.5.2007 but they did not inform the complainant about the fate of cheque within a week or so but informed him after a lapse of four months on 29.8.2007 and due to this delay, complainant had to pay extra interest of Rs.27,545/-. However, the said amount of interest charged by OPs has been ordered to be refunded to the complainant besides litigation costs of Rs.5500/- by the District Consumer Forum, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact of non-explanation of reason by the complainant for sending back the cheque, we feel that the amount of compensation of Rs.25000/- is on the higher side and thus the same is reduced to 50%. Hence, on this count of compensation, complainant would be entitled to Rs.12500/- instead of Rs.25,000/-.
7. But for this modification in the amount of compensation payable to the complainant, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.
Sd/-
Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.) 13th Nov.,2009 President Sd/-
(Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor)(Retd) Member Sd/-
(Mrs.Neena Sandhu) Member Js