MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD Vs. TALAKKOTTUR RS. DAVID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition No.1027 of 2021 filed on 1/12/2021 challenges the impugned order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram ('State Commission', hereafter) dtd. 8/3/2021. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed Appeal No.163 of 2020. Also Review Application No.5/2021 in Appeal No.163/2020 was also dismissed by the State Commission vide order dtd. 28/10/2021. In turn, this Appeal had been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram ('District Forum', hereafter) dtd. 20/1/2020. Vide this order, the District Forum, had directed the petitioner/OP-ICICI Bank Ltd. (the 'OP', hereafter) to pay Rs.55,177.00 along with Rs.25,000.00 as compensation to the Complainant for the mental agony and Rs.2,000.00 towards the cost of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the District Forum failing with the amount except cost carries interest @ 8% per annum from the date of default till realization.

(2.) The brief facts as per the Complainant are that he had availed a loan from the Petitioner Bank for purchasing a car. The loan was for an amount of Rs.12,00,000.00 and was sanctioned on 20/7/2013. The interest charged was 11.5 per annum and the loan was to be repaid in Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) over a period of 5 years. The EMI stipulated was Rs.26,141..00 The Respondent issued signed undated cheques towards payment of EMIs due from him. His case is that, he believed the instalments to fall due only from a date, 30 days after availing the loan. However, the Appellant presented his cheques before the due dates causing its dishonour. As a result, his former employee who was a party to the loan was also prejudicially affected. His CIBIL ratings went down. Though he had written a letter to the Petitioner's Manager on 9/7/2016 stating all the above facts, no response was given. Finally, the Respondent paid off the entire balance amount due to the bank on 5/8/2016 and closed the loan, though the loan would have expired only in July 2018. According to the Respondent, as per the statement of accounts furnished by the Petitioner bank, the balance amount due from him on 15/7/2016 was Rs.5,34,67..00 However, the closure amount as per the onetime settlement was fixed at Rs.5,68,831..00 For closure of the entire transaction, the bank insisted, and he had to pay Rs.5,94,972..00 According to the Respondent, there was no basis for extracting the excess amount which was substantial and he being a senior citizen and a person aged over 80 years ought to have been treated with more decency and compassion. Therefore, by filing a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum he sought return of Rs.55,177..00

(3.) The complaint was contested by the Petitioner/OP that no amount as claimed was either due or payable to the Respondent. According to the OP, Rs.12,00,000.00 loan was sanctioned to the Respondent with interest @ 11.5%. This was not a hire purchase agreement as alleged. The Respondent authorized the bank to debit from his account each month the instalment due towards repayment of the loan. Accordingly, his cheques were presented due on the 15th of each month, as agreed. However, many of his cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thus, penal interest had to be levied and debited. By concealing these facts he filed the complaint. The Appellant is a public limited bank and is functioning strictly in accordance with RBI guidelines. The money of the bank is public money and therefore non-payment of the instalments on time would attract penal interest, which the Respondent was bound to pay as per the terms of agreement entered into with the bank, while availing the loan. As per banking practice, all details of loan transactions are to be shared with the Credit Information Bureau Ltd. (CIBIL), an independent repository that maintains the cash history of all borrowers across the country. Reports are sent by all banks on a regular basis to the CIBIL. The charges levied and extracted from the Respondent are as per RBI guidelines. Therefore, the Respondent was not entitled to any relief. In addition, the dispute relates to settlement of accounts, which was not maintainable under the Act and, further, the complaint itself was barred by limitation.