State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank vs Ramswaroop Kumawat on 7 May, 2013
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR FIRST APPEAL NO: 649/2012 1. ICICI Bank Limited, Shreeji Tower, Ahinsa Circle, C- Scheme, Jaipur through Manager. 2. ICICI Bank Limited, Landmark, Race Course Circle, Badodara, Gujarat through Manager ....Appellants Vs. Ramswaroop Kumawat w/o Sh.Jaman Lal Kumawat, Bhopakala ki Dhabani Gram Nindar Via VKI Area, Tehsil Amer, Distt.Jaipur office r/o Plot no. 75, Jagdamda colony, Dher ka balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur office at Khatan India Ltd. 10 Gopinath Marg, New Colony, Jaipur. ...Respondent Date of order 07.05.2013 Before: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashok Parihar-President Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra- Member
Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member 2 Mr.Abhikesh Bhandari counsel for the appellants Mr.Ramjilal Kumawat counsel for the respondent BY THE STATE COMMISSION
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant ICICI Bank ( hereinafter referred to as " the bank " )against the judgment dated 17.04.2012 of the learned District Forum, Jaipur IInd Jaipur ( hereinafter referred to as "the DCF" ) in Complaint no.318/2012 (912/2008 ) titled Ramswaroop Kumawat Vs. ICICI Bank, whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the appellant was directed to make payment of Rs.5,000/- + Rs. 393/- with interest at the rate of 24 % p.a. to the complainant and damages of Rs. 10 lakhs were also awarded out of which Rs. 50,000/- was to be given to the complainant and rest of the amount was to be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund. The learned DCF also directed to hold an enquiry u/s 340 CRPC against the officers of the bank for giving false evidence in the court.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant had a zero balance salary saving account with the bank and was an employee of Khaitan Electricals Ltd. The 3 complainant had taken a loan from his employer and the EMI of the loan was Rs. 2500/-. The complainant issued a cheque of Rs. 5000/- on 09.06.2008 in the name of Khaitan Electricals Ltd. for payment of two months EMI. The Khaitan Electricals submitted the aforesaid cheque in its banker 'State Bank of Patiala' on 24.06.2008 but the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient amount in the complainant's account and the cheque was returned to the complainant. The statement of account of complainant revealed that there was an amount of Rs.5007.25 in the account on 24.06.2008 but the cheque was dishonoured despite sufficient amount in the account. The bank also deducted Rs. 393/- against the dishonoured cheque. A complaint was filed by the complainant before the learned DCF which was allowed vide impugned judgment.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the bank on the ground that the learned DCF ignored the factual and legal aspect and allowed the complaint against the provisions of law. The learned DCF also awarded exhorbitant punitive damages against the bank and hence the appeal be allowed.
4. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the record and the impugned judgment.
45. It is an admitted fact from the reply of the bank before the learned DCF in response to the complaint that due to techenical mistake the cheque was dishonoured and there was an amount of Rs.5007/- in the account of the complainant when the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured on 24.06.2008. The copy of the statement of account also reveals that there was sufficient amount on 24.06.2008 in the complainant's account and the cheque issued by the complainant amounting Rs. 5000/- could have been honoured and cleared easily by the bank. The learned counsel for the bank also admitted that due to computerised system and techenical dishonour of the cheque of the complainant , the amount of Rs. 393/- was debited from the complainant's account. Thus, it is an admitted fact that due to mistake of the appellant bank , the cheque issued by the complainant amounting to Rs. 5000/- was dishonoured and an amount of Rs. 393/- was illegally debited from his account.
6. On the one hand the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured whereas the copy of the statement Anx. 3 produced by the bank shows that an amount of Rs. 5000/- against cheque number 542487 was paid to Khaitan Electricals. Thus, it is also apparent that the bank has tried to show that the cheque was honoured and thus false documents has been submitted by the 5 bank before the learned DCF. Therefore, the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned DCF are totally reasonable, justified and correct and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings of the learned DCF.
7. Though the complainant had sought Rs. 2 lakhs as damages in the matter but the learned DCF awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. Ten lakhs out of which Rs. 50,000/- were to be given to the complainant and Rs. 9,50,000/- were directed to be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the matter, the compensation awarded by the learned DCF appears to be quite excessive and we deem it proper to modify the amount of compensation awarded in the matter. The rate of interest awarded is also 24% which is also excessive and we deem it proper to reduce it to 12% p.a. Looking to the facts in the matter, it will be appropriate to award a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- only and the amount of Rs.9,50,000/- which was to be deposited by the appellant bank in the State Consumer Welfare Fund is remitted. The bank is not required to deposit this amount in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings and conclusions 6 arrived at by the learned DCF are affirmed but the impugned operative portion of the order is modified to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to receive from the bank Rs. 5000/- + Rs. 393/- total Rs. 5393/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of order of the learned DCF. The appellant shall also pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( One lakh ) as compensation to the complainant instead of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the District Forum. The bank need not to deposit Rs. 9,50,000/- in the State Consumer Welfare Fund. The remaining part of the order is affirmed and upheld. The compliance of the order be made within one month from today.The appellants, after making compliance of the order, shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount if any deposited by them before the District Forum in the present appeal.
Member Member President