ICICI BANK LTD. Vs. MOHAN LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission ) in Appeal No. 561 of 2007 ICICI Bank Ltd. & anr. Vs. Mohan Lal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent no.1 is an old man of 60 years. On 3.4.2006, he went to ICICI Bank to deposit Rs.1 lac for one year in the shape of FD. He met in the bank OP No. 2/Respondent No.2 Vivek Sethi, who obtained his signatures on some blank papers. On 9.4.2006, the complainant went to the bank to collect the said FD and met Vivek Sethi OP No. 2 who asked him if he had no objection to invest his amount in some other beneficial scheme carrying more rate of interest for the same period. He then obtained his signatures on some more papers without disclosing the scheme to him. At the time of signing the forms, the complainant made it clear to OP No. 2 that the said amount is just like a saving which may be used by the complainant at the time of need to which OP No. 2 agreed. Even at that time, the scheme was not disclosed to the complainant. In the month of May, 2006, when the complainant received the courier, he was shocked to know that the amount was invested in the ICICI Prudential known as Life Insurance Scheme with an allocation charges of Rs.18,000/-. The complainant approached OP No. 2 as to what he had done without his consent and knowledge to which OP No. 2 gave no satisfactory reply. The complainant then contacted the higher authorities of the OP Bank on telephone and the Branch Manager was also informed but they were unable to satisfy him. He was rather told that if he wanted to get the money back, he had to deposit the remaining installments regularly and that OP No. 2 had his own interest and was to get incentive of Rs.24,000/- for 3 years. He was also to earn promotion and tour to a foreign country. It was done by OP No. 2 for its own benefit and to achieve the target with the connivance of the higher authorities of the bank. According to the complainant, his father s name was not mentioned in the policy and his signatures were obtained by committing fraud and without providing proper information to the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs were proceeded ex-parte before District Forum. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% p.a. interest along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OPs was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) None appeared for respondents even after service and they were proceeded ex-parte.