ICICI BANK LTD THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGAR HAVING ITS OFFICE Vs. MRINAL KANTI PAUL S/O LATE M N PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner ICICI Bank Ltd., against the order dated 25.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.1181 of 2012.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in September, 2006, the respondent herein applied for a loan of Rs.2 lakh from ICICI Bank Ltd. through its Regional Manager, for the purpose of purchase of a plot of land measuring 112 sq. mtrs. from Mathura Vrindawan Development Authority. For procuring the loan, the respondent herein had offered his vehicle Mahindra Bolero for hypothecation. Value of the vehicle was Rs.6,25,000.00. The petitioner bank accordingly sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,00,000.00 to the respondent. In August, 2007, the respondent alleged that the loan amount was not disbursed despite the fact that the respondent moved from pillar to post in the petitioner bank. It was also requested by the respondent to remove the endorsement of hypothecation on the registration certificate of his vehicle so as to enable him to get loan from some other bank. It was further alleged by the respondent herein that with the aforesaid loss of time there was an escalation in the price of the plot and non-payment of the instalment of the plot resulted in its cancellation by Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority. It has been further alleged by the respondent herein that the said cancellation was however, restored on payment of a penalty of Rs.27,675.00 along with restoration charges. It is further alleged by the respondent that he availed a loan from a private person on an interest @10% p.a.

(3.) Aggrieved, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum X, New Delhi (in short 'the District Forum') and the same was numbered as 590 of 2007. The petitioner resisted the complaint by filing replies. In the reply it was submitted that the complainant had applied for car overdraft facility on 12.09.2006 against his vehicle and the application of the respondent was approved by the petitioner bank. As per the process, the petitioner bank arranged hypothecation of his vehicle in its favour before disbursing the loan and as per the procedure the respondent herein had to supply the complete documents to the bank. It was further submitted that the respondent deliberately failed to supply the requisite documents despite several reminders and after waiting till 13.04.2007, the case was closed. In these circumstances, the loan was not disbursed.