Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
SANJAY VASANT SALVE - Appellant
Versus
ICICI BANK LTD. - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1459 of 2016 from Order dated 26.11.2015 in First Appeal No. FA/13/404 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai with IA No. 4987 of 2016 (Condonation of delay)
Decided on : 27-05-2016
Ms. Bhavna and Mr. Pankaj Rai, Advocates, for the Petitioner; None, for the Respondent
The court upheld the bank's authority to recover outstanding amounts and justified the actions based on Section 171 of the Contract Act and the precedent set in Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1066.
Headnote:
Banking - Loan Dispute - Section 171 of the Contract Act - Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1066
Fact of the Case:
The complainant took a loan from ICICI Bank Ltd and faced issues with undisclosed charges and blocked savings bank account. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum and the State Commission found it barred by time under Section 24A of the C.P. Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the complaint barred by time and dismissed the Revision Petition, ordering the petitioner to pay costs in the sum of Rs. 1,30,000.
Issues: The issues involved undisclosed charges, blocked savings bank account, and the timeliness of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 171 of the Contract Act and the precedent set in Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1066 to justify the bank's actions.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs in the sum of Rs. 1,30,000.
ORDER
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. Sh. Sanjay Vasant Salve, the complainant, took loan in the sum of Rs. 4,50,000 from ICICI Bank Ltd. The said loan was to be refunded in 48 Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) of Rs. 13,875 each. The first EMI was to be paid on 11.2.2007 but the complainant received a statement dated 19.1.2007 from the Opposite Party, wherein process fee in the sum of Rs. 9,849.08 was demanded with due date 7.2.2007. The grievance of the complainant is that he was not informed about the process fee. The complainant approached the customer care centre. The customer care centre intimated the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 9,000 immediately as a pre-condition and further the complainant was told that, that amount will be adjusted against first EMI due on 11.2.2007.
2. The Bank issued second bill dated 6.2.2007 showing due amount of Rs. 9,849.08 ps. The case of the petitioner is that he had already paid the amount of Rs. 9,000. Consequently, he ignored the said bill. The Bank issued third bill dated 5.3.2007 demanding an amount of Rs. 13,875 from the complainant including service tax on interest. The complainant contacted customer charge centre of the Bank and paid an amount of Rs. 14,000 on 23.3.2007.
3. The Bank issued fourth bill/statement dated 5.4.2007. In this bill also, service tax on interest was added. The Bank charged late payment fee, service tax on late payment fee, interest and service tax on interest. The complainant made payment of Rs. 13,875 on 24.4.2007. However, the Bank continued to levy charges in all the subsequent bills during the period from April 2007 to July 2007.
4. The complainant wrote a letter to Shri Harshil Mehta, Nodal Officer of the Bank. The said letter was sent on 1.8.2007. In the heading of the letter sent by the petitioner, the petitioner mentioned "Unresolved grievances regarding personal loan against Credit Card". The complainant mentioned that he was not told that any service tax is due over and above on his EMI amount, wherein the following prayers were made:
"(1) Written Clarification regarding interest component of EMI due under which Section of the Service Tax Act. So that I will seek clarification from the Service Tax Commissioner in this regard.
(2) Re-vert the false amount charged for the late fee and service tax amount. On the late fee as I am regularly paying EMI before 25th of every month.
(3) Revert false amount, interest charges because nothing is due except EMI amount which I am paying before due date.
(4) Re-vert the service tax levied on interest component of EMI.
(5) To take disciplinary action against Marketing Executive who has concealed the information regarding service tax on EMI while taking my approval of personal loans through phone banking.
(6) Adequately compensate me for the hardship I have faced due to above on the part of your marketing executive and recovering executives.
(7) Please ensure that no executive should approach me for recovering of disputed amount".
5. However, the request of the complainant was rejected. Ultimately, he issued legal notice, which was not replied by the Bank. The complainant paid all the EMIs upto the month of August 2009. The Bank continued to treat the payment as part-payment and continued to impose illegal charges on outstanding dues. The complainant is savings bank account-holder of the Bank, having branch office at D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai. On 2.9.2009, the complainant went to withdraw the amount from his savings bank account. There, it transpired that the Bank had blocked his savings bank account due to outstanding amount against the personal loan account. The complainant objected for illegal action, by a letter dated 2.9.2009. The Bank debited an amount of Rs. 1,05,425.94, without any legal right and without informing the complainant, it is alleged that the Opposite Party has adopted unfair trade practise and the Bank was deficient while rendering service to h
