Back
Richa
A-11-1122
Page 1 of 8
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD
APPEAL NO. 1122 of 2011
[Virtual Hearing]
Court No. 1
1ICIC Bank Ltd.,
Plot No.341, ward No. 12 B
Gandhidham – Kachchh.
2ICIC Bank Ltd.
9th Floor, JMC House,
Opp. Parimal Garden,
Ambavadi, Ahmedabad. …Appellants
Vs
Rajiv Lakhanpal
Shop No. 1 & 2., Sector No. 8
Oslo Road
Gandhidham- Kachchh …Respondents
Coram : Justice V. P. Patel, President
Mrs. U. P. Jani, Member
APPERANCE : Mr . L. M. Patel, advocate for the appellants.
Order: (By Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President)
1. Appellants have filed this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer
Protection Act 2019, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order dated 25/1/2011 Passed by the consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Kachchh- Bhuj (for short Learned District
Commission) in Consumer case no.85/09.
2. Heard ld. Advocate L. M. Patel, for the appellants. Perused the
record of the case and judgment and order passed by the ld. District
commission.
Details
DD
MM
YY
Date of Judgment
16 3
2021 Date of filing
20 8
2011 Duration
27 6
Richa
A-11-1122
Page 2 of 8
2.1 The appellants here in is the original opponents no.1 and 2 and
respondent
is
complainant.
(Herein
after
the
appellants
and
respondents will be referred as per their original status).
2.2 That the notice was issue to the respondent/ consumer through
RPAD but cover was return back because of incomplete address.
Therefore, public notice was issued. Thus respondent is served through
the public notice.
Order under challenge :
3. District Commission has passed following judgment and order :
“The complainant of the complainant is partially allowed. The opponents
are ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 7,67,700/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Sixty
Seven Thousand Seven Hundred only) and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) against Mental Harassment and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only) for cost to the complainant.”
Facts of the case :
4. The complainant applied for loan and necessary documents required
for loan process was submitted. Opponents sanctioned the loan of 20
lakhs for Cash Credit Limit and 30 Lakhs for L.C. Letter of Credit. The
Sanctioned was informed by Letter no. CAL No. 78/W/35AHM/04769
dated on 8.10.2007. Thereafter opponents collected Rs. 8,42,700/- as
processing fee. Apart from the processing fees the opponents also
collected the documents of the mortgage property, title clearing
certificate, search report, valuation report etc. needed to be submitted
which coasted the complainant sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. That the
submitting all the documents the opponents did not release the loan
amount for which repeated reminders were written. Then suddenly the
opponents sent a letter stating that they were in the process of taking
an opinion from the complainant’s present banker and previous
banker. The complainant further stated that the opponent had
Richa
A-11-1122
Page 3 of 8
prejudice and hence did not release the loan and informed the
complainant. For not releasing the sanctioned loan amount the
complainant has come to this forum.
5. Arguments of the appellant :
It is argued by the ld. Advocate for the appellant that the credit
arrangement letter dated 08.10.2007 sanctioned in principle subject to
terms and conditions set out in Annexure 1. And subject to execution of
documents. That the complainant has to pay processing fees Rs.
7,50,000/- applicable service tax. That the respondent has sanction
signed and acknowledged the said sanction letter and paid processing
fees to the bank. It is further argued that as per the clause 10 (9) of the
terms and conditions, prior to disbursement, the complainant was
required to submit a credit report from its existing banks conforming
