National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Icici Bank Ltd. vs Mrinal Kanti Paul on 9 April, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3236 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 25/10/2016 in Appeal No. 1181/2012 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. ICICI BANK LTD. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGAR HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: PADMA BUILDING (G.F) NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI - 110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MRINAL KANTI PAUL S/O SHRI LATE M.N PAUL R/O POCKET NO. 52/108 (G.F.) C.R. PARK NEW DELHI - 110019 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kashish Narang , Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Niraj Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. U Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate
Dated : 09 Apr 2019 ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner ICICI Bank Ltd., against the order dated 25.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.1181 of 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in September, 2006, the respondent herein applied for a loan of Rs.2 lakh from ICICI Bank Ltd. through its Regional Manager, for the purpose of purchase of a plot of land measuring 112 sq. mtrs. from Mathura Vrindawan Development Authority. For procuring the loan, the respondent herein had offered his vehicle Mahindra Bolero for hypothecation. Value of the vehicle was Rs.6,25,000.00. The petitioner bank accordingly sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,00,000.00 to the respondent. In August, 2007, the respondent alleged that the loan amount was not disbursed despite the fact that the respondent moved from pillar to post in the petitioner bank. It was also requested by the respondent to remove the endorsement of hypothecation on the registration certificate of his vehicle so as to enable him to get loan from some other bank. It was further alleged by the respondent herein that with the aforesaid loss of time there was an escalation in the price of the plot and non-payment of the instalment of the plot resulted in its cancellation by Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority. It has been further alleged by the respondent herein that the said cancellation was however, restored on payment of a penalty of Rs.27,675.00 along with restoration charges. It is further alleged by the respondent that he availed a loan from a private person on an interest @10% p.a.
3. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum X, New Delhi (in short 'the District Forum') and the same was numbered as 590 of 2007. The petitioner resisted the complaint by filing replies. In the reply it was submitted that the complainant had applied for car overdraft facility on 12.09.2006 against his vehicle and the application of the respondent was approved by the petitioner bank. As per the process, the petitioner bank arranged hypothecation of his vehicle in its favour before disbursing the loan and as per the procedure the respondent herein had to supply the complete documents to the bank. It was further submitted that the respondent deliberately failed to supply the requisite documents despite several reminders and after waiting till 13.04.2007, the case was closed. In these circumstances, the loan was not disbursed.
4. On 23.11.2012, after hearing both the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint in view of the stand taken by the petitioner bank in the written statement/reply that they were ready and willing to return the Registration Certificate to the respondent herein after deletion of the entry of hypothecation. On 24.12.2012, feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Forum, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal was numbered as Appeal No.1181 of 2012. On 25.10.2016, the arguments on the said appeal were heard and the learned State Commission was pleased to allow the appeal and held that the petitioner bank was guilty of deficiency of service and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 (inclusive of litigation charges) for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony caused to the respondent herein. It was further ordered in case the compensation is not paid within 30 days, the bank will have to pay interest @24% p.a. on the amount.
5. Hence the present revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner bank had sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. However, complainant did not complete the formalities and did not file the relevant documents and, therefore, the amount could not be disbursed to the complainant. Therefore, the case was also closed on 13.4.2007. Learned counsel stated that after the order of the District Forum, the RC of the vehicle has been returned after due cancellation of the hypothecation. The District Forum has clearly held that no consideration was paid for sanctioning of the loan and therefore, the complainant was not a consumer. The State Commission, on the other hand, has found the complainant as consumer and has passed an order erroneously in favour of the complainant for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner bank. It was stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant was not a consumer as no consideration was paid to the petitioner bank for service of sanctioning of loan.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the interest was to be given on the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- which was sanctioned by the petitioner bank, but the same was not disbursed to the complainant. As Section 2(1)(d) refers to the payment made or deferred, the interest to be paid can be considered as payment deferred and therefore, the complainant would be treated as consumer. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that when the case was closed on 13.04.2007, then it was the duty of the petitioner bank to have returned the RC after cancelling the hypothecation endorsement. However, inspite of various requests to the petitioner bank, the RC was not returned after cancelling the hypothecation endorsement. The RC has been returned after cancellation of the hypothecation endorsement only after the order of the District Form. The complainant suffered for about 5 years due to hypothecation remark made by the petitioner bank and the complainant could not sell the vehicle during this period. Thus, unnecessarily, due to this deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner bank, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and even financial loss during the period of 5 years. Hence, the State Commission has rightly compensated the complainant.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. A loanee is a consumer of the bank that sanctions the loan because interest will be treated as consideration for sanction of the loan. Clearly, the loan was sanctioned by the petitioner bank on the application of the complainant, therefore, complainant would be treated as consumer. I do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner bank that as no amount was paid for sanctioning of the loan, the complainant could not be a consumer. If the petitioner bank is not charging any fees for sanctioning of the loan, clearly, it may be a concession being given to the customers in order to disburse more amount of loan amounts to different customers so that the bank's credit increases and it earns more income by way of interest. Obviously, it was not an interest free loan, therefore, interest would be considered as consideration for the service.
9. The bank has admitted that the case was closed on 13.4.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner bank could not explain as to why the RC of the vehicle was not returned after cancellation of the hypothecation after 13.4.2007. Clearly, the vehicle remained hypothecated to the bank without any reason for about 5 years and the petitioner bank only cancelled the hypothecation endorsement and released the RC after the order of the District Forum dated 19.11.2012. Though, there is no proof that the complainant wanted to sell the vehicle in question, however, it is true that the complainant suffered for about five years unnecessarily due to hypothecation remark on the RC. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner bank has mentioned that the requisite documents were not filed by the complainant and therefore, the loan amount could not be disbursed, however, no specific documents have been mentioned. The State Commission has also made the same observations in in its order as follows:-
"Before parting it may be mentioned here that the OP bank referred to non-supply of requisite documents by the complainant. Perusal of the written version of the OP bank shows that it has not mentioned as to which specific documents were required to be furnished by the complainant. OP bank also referred to sending several reminders to the complainant calling upon him to furnish documents. No such reminders have been placed on record by the OP bank. OP bank admitted having processed and approved the loan. It was only after approval that it put an endorsement on the Registration Certificate. There was thus no occasion for the OP bank to call for any further documents. The complainant asked the OP bank to cancel the endorsement on the registration certificate of the vehicle when it failed to disburse in the loan. The said endorsement was not cancelled on repeated request of the complainant. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant falls within the ambit of the definition of the 'consumer' and the OP bank was guilty of 'deficiency in service'. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Complaint is consequently allowed and the OP bank is directed to pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac (inclusive of litigation charges) for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant. Let the aforesaid compensation be paid to the complainant within a period of 30 days from today failing which the interest @24% p.a. shall be leviable on the said amount after the expiry of the period of 30 days."
10. From the above examination, it is clearly brought out that there has been deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner bank and therefore, the petitioner bank is liable to compensate the respondent in this regard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the State Commission and the interest to be paid on that amount seems to be on a higher side and the same is required to be rationalised. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to reduce the awarded amount from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order of the State Commission till actual realisation. The petitioner will also pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as cost of litigation because the petitioner has unnecessarily created circumstances for the complainant to file a consumer complaint.
11. Petitioner bank has already deposited 50% of the awarded amount by the State Commission along with up to date interest with the Registry of this Commission in compliance of the orders dated 21.11.2017 and 16.03.2018 of this Commission. Registry shall release the amount as per this order to the complainant and the remaining amount if any be refunded to the petitioner bank. If the amount deposited is less than the amount to be paid to the complainant, the whole amount be released to the respondent/complainant and the petitioner bank shall pay the remaining amount to the complainant within a period of 45 days.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER