National Consumer Disputes Redressal
G. Somasekhar vs Icici Bank Ltd. & Ors. on 19 July, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
CONSUMER
COMPLAINT NO. 174 OF 2013
Shri SOMASHEKHAR G.
No. 151, 1st Cross, 4th Main Road, 4th Stage,
Basveswaranagar, West of Chord Road,
BENGALURU -
560044.
...Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI BANK
Through its Chief Executive Officer
2950, 1st Floor, Aishwarya Arcade
Kalidasa Road, V.V. Mohalla,
MYSORE - 570002.
2. ICICI Credit Card Division,
HO No. 1, 2nd Floor, ICICI Bank Tower, (Opp. Mayo
Hall) Commissariat Road,
BENGALURU - 560025.
3. ABN AMRO Bank,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
7th Floor, Opp. Oberoi Shopping Center
Nariman Point,
MUMBAI
4. ABN Personal Division,
ABN AMRO Bank Ltd.,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
No. 22, 3rd & 4th Floor
Prestige Kada, Richmond Road,
BENGALURU - 560025.
5. India-Bulls Financial Service Ltd.,
Through its Chief Executive Officer, Corporate Office
India Bulls House, 448-451, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
GURGAON - 122001.
6. HDFC Credit Card Division,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
PO Box No. 8654, Thiruvanmiyur,
CHENNAI - 600041.
7. SBI Credit Cards,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
Correspondent Department
DLF Infinity Towers,Tower C, 10th-12th Floor
Block-2, Building-3, DLF Cyber City,
GURGAON - 122002.
8. Hongkong & Shanghai Bank Corporation,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
No. 7, M.G. Road,
BANGALORE - 560001.
9. Development Credit Bank Ltd.,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
DCB Bank Retail Assests, Credit Department
2nd Floor, Prestige Meridian Annexe,
M.G. Road,
BENGALURU 560001
10. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
DARE House, No. 2
NSC Bose Road,
CHENNAI - 600001.
11. CITI Financials,
Through its Chief Executive Officer, 3
LSC, Pushpa Vihar,
NEW DELHI - 110062.
12. Cholamandalam (Taken over HDFC Bank Ltd.),
Through its Chief Executive Officer
548/D, 1st Floor, Maruthi Mansion
CMH Road, Indranagar,
BENGALURU - 560038.
13. Credit Information Bureau of India Ltd.,
Through its Chief Executive Officer, CIBIL PO Box No.
421, Wagle Industrial Estate,
THANE - 400004.
MAHARASHTRA
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M.
MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE
DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr.
Mallikarjun S. Mylar, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON_19.07.2013
O
R D E R
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. The burning questions which fall for
consideration are firstly, Whether the
case is barred by time? and secondly, Whether the OPs are bound to pay a colossal amount of loan to
the complainant, which they have
declined to pay?.
2. Somashekhar, the
complainant was a customer of ICICI Bank
Ltd, Opposite party No.1, who had availed loans from the OP No.1 on various dates between the years
2001 and 2007. The loan was repaid on
various dates between the years 2003
and 2011. The complainant, with the
desire to extend his business and develop his properties, approached all the
opposite parties and submitted 29 applications between the years
2006 and 2011. The complainant was constrained to raise
substantial amount on various dates
between the years 2009 and 2010. In the 29 applications, the complainant had asked
for a total sum to the tune of Rs.6,51,78,982/- for his several mega business projects and for housing purposes, between the years 2006
and 2011. The complainant has also
mentioned that he would also invest in Hotel project, cement project, Hollow project, etc., and prepared a detailed
plan(s), project reports and submitted the same to the Opp.parties. The complainant furnished all the requisite documents. There were several rounds of discussions. The complainant was told that applications were being forwarded to the
higher officials and the same were being processed.
3. The complainant
was given assurance but before the loans were sanctioned, he had raised the initial capital as back as in the
year 2006, either by selling or pledging his valuable properties. The complainant entered into an
agreement to sell the property bearing
No. 1/6 (old number) (New Number 43), situated at Shivanagar, Bangalore
for a
sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs, in favour
of one Shivaprasad of Bangalore. Since the OPs
had given him positive hopes during the years 2009 and
2010, the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs and Rs.5.00
lakhs from V.B.Yaligar of Bangalore, on
01.03.2009 and 11.03.2009, respectively.
He also borrowed a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs from one R.M.Raviprakash of Bangalore, on
24.09.2009. He further executed a
Promissory Note in favour of one Ms.Suguna.
4. His other
assets, properties and buildings, worth Rs.8.2 crores offering for security,
etc., were kept idle to meet the exigencies, in anticipation of sanctioning of loans by the opposite parties/bankers. A number of times, the complainant made requests to the
banks but the matter was put off, on one pretext or the other.
5. It transpired
that the bankers were slow due to the report submitted by Credit
Information Bureau (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as CIBIL, in
short). In October, 2010, the
complainant wrote to CIBIL alleging that their
reports had impeded the processing of his loan applications. CIBIL replied
vide letter dated 30.11.2010, that they
regret their inability to process his
request as the address mentioned by him does not match with
the same, on the Credit Information
Report (hereinafter referred to as CIR,
in short). The complainant accordingly sent his address
once again and waited for a long
time. CIBIL, by its yet another letter,
dated 24.12.2010, sought some other particulars. Thereafter, CIBIL did not respond.
6. The complainant was compelled to approach the RBI vide letter
dated 05.05.2011, which through its letter
dated 02.06.2011, asked the complainant to approach the Managing Director of CIBIL.
After Herculean efforts, the complainant received reports from CIBIL,
dated 19.10.2010, marked as Annexure L, mentioned that his CIR was manifestly fallacious and distorted. It did not mention the true facts. The complainant wanted that
necessary corrections may be made. Vide copies of letters dated 22.10.2010 and 23.10.2010. CIBIL issued reports dated 27.10.2010 and
27.01.2011, but no corrections were made.
7. The complainant also approached
the Office of the Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India (Bangalore) and also the
Chairperson/ Chairman, High Level Advisory Committee (RBI), through letters
dated 16.05.2011 for an appropriate action. However, on 20.06.2011, the complainant again sent
a reminder to Opp.parties/ CIBIL. The
CIBIL issued another report dated 30.08.2011 which was also not correct. Many entries were wrongly shown and in a
dilly-dallied manner. Another reminder was sent by the complainant on
15.09.2011. The Ombudsman, RBI,
Bangalore, vide its letter dated 25.04.2012,
ordered that the matter was outside its purview. Under these circumstances, this complaint was filed before this Commission, on
30.05.2013, with the following prayers :-
i. A sum of Rs.11,50,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven
crores and fifty lakhs only), being the total amount towards loss and damage
and compensation.
ii. An
interest at the rate of 18% from the date of deficiency till the date of
payment.
iii. Grant
such other relief/s that, this Honble Commission deems fit to grant in facts
and circumstances of the case.
8. We have
heard the counsel for the complainant.
The cause of action arose on 22.10.2010 when the CIBIL had refused to
pay the money to the complainant.
It came to the knowledge of the complainant and that is why he sent
representations vide letters dated 22.10.2010 and 23.10.2010. Because the cause of action had arisen from
22.10.2010, the reminders and reports do not extend the period of limitation. The
reports of the Ombudsman and the pendency of the case, does
not go to the rescue of the
complainant and that
time is not to be adjusted. The case was not filed within two years from
22.10.2010 onwards and, therefore, it is barred by time.
9. Secondly,
it is not understood as to how the complainant is a consumer. It is the prerogative of the Bank to advance loan or not to advance
loan. They have to
satisfy themselves.
The complainant was asking for an astronomical amount.
It is a well-known fact that there
are a number of bad
loans, in each and every bank. People
of this country take loans but subsequently they waddle out of their
commitments. The Bank has to satisfy itself whether such a whopping amount of
loan should be given to a genuine
person or not.
10. It must be borne
in mind that the Bank has not yet granted loan to
the complainant. He is not a
consumer. All the transactions are commercial transactions. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said
that the complainant is a
consumer.
11. Lastly,
this case entails lot of
evidence, examination of witnesses, examination of Expert report, etc. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we deal
with summary procedure. The complaint itself runs into 43 pages and is a voluminous
record. Although under Section 3 of the CP Act, 1986, this Commission can deal
with such like matters, yet, when lot of evidence is to be recorded, this case must be dealt with by the Civil Court/High Court.
12. For all these reasons, we dismiss
the complaint with costs in the
sum of Rs.25,000/-, which be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund, for
Uttarakhand Tragedy, within 60 days,
failing which, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a.
The Registrar of this Commission
is directed to see that this order is complied with and shall submit his report, within 30 days, thereafter.
.....
(J. M. MALIK,J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER dd/21