DINESH KUMAR S/O SH. YASH PAL SONI R/O 299, ARBAN STATE, TEHSIL PHAGWARA, DISTRICT KAPURTHALA Vs. I.C.I.C.I BANK & 2 ORS. THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, G.T. ROAD, OPPOSITE BUS STAND, HONDA BUILDING TEHSIL PHAGWARA, DISTRICT KAPURTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.2,92,000.00 from the respondent/opposite party against a Credit Card, which the opposite party had issued to him. The said loan was payable in 48 instalments of Rs.9,650.00 per month. The case of the complainant is that a cheque dated 16.12.2008 for Rs.9582.00 was deposited by him with the respondent but this amount was not credited to his loan account. The said cheque is alleged to have been lost by the respondent. Thereafter, next payment was made by the petitioner/complainant on 16.05.2009. According to the petitioner/complainant, the respondent started levying penal charges on him on account of default in making timely payment of the instalments, despite the fact it was the Bank, which was at fault by losing the cheque dated 16.12.2008. The complainant was also having a Current Account with the respondent. A sum of Rs.6635.33 was deducted from the said current account. According to the complainant, when he approached the respondent, he was informed that there was an outstanding of Rs.70,000.00 in his loan account. He was also informed that they had marked a lien of Rs.94,815.00 in his current account on 29.03.2013. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid action of the respondent, the complainant approached the District Forum by way of a complaint seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The respondent filed a reply resisting the complaint stating inter-alia that an amount of Rs.94,819.15 was due in the loan account of the complainant as on 01.07.2013. It was stated in the reply that all the charges levied in the account were as per the terms and conditions applicable to rules and regulations. The respondent denied having lost the cheque alleged to have been deposited by the petitioner/complainant.

(3.) The District Forum vide its order dated 26.08.2013 allowed the complaint.