DINESH KUMAR vs I.C.I.C.I BANK & 2 ORS.

The complainant/petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.2,92,000/- from the respondent/opposite party against a Credit Card, which the opposite party had issued to him. The said loan was payable in 48 installments of Rs.9,650/- per month. The case of the complainant is that a cheque dated 16.12.2008 for Rs.9582/- 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 installments, 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/- in his loan account. He was also informed that they had marked a lien of Rs.94,815/- 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: "a. The opp. parties be directed to remove the lien from the current account bearing No.632105001354.

b. The opp. Parties be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him at the hands of the opp. parties.

c. The opp. parties be directed to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant in connection with the loan amount bearing No.9401270144684003.

d. The opp. parties be directed to remove the name of the complainant from Cibil.

e. The opp. parties be directed to refund Rs.6635.33/- illegally deducting from saving account of complainant."

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.

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

Being aggrieved the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 17.04.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal on the ground that such matter cannot be adjudicated in a consumer complaint and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

It is petitioner''s own case that after the cheque dated 16.12.2008 was allegedly lost by the bank, the next payment was deposited only on 16.06.2009. As noted earlier, the loan taken by him was repayable in monthly installment of Rs.9650/-. Thus, there was admitted default in payment of installments which fell due on 16.01.2009, 16.02.2009, 16.03.2009 and 16.04.2009. Even in respect of the installment, which had fallen due on 16.12.2008, the petitioner/complainant could easily have avoided the default by getting the payment of cheque no. 669403 stopped and issuing another cheque to the respondent in lieu of the said cheque. Be that as it may, even if we ignored the default in payment of installment which fall due on 16.12.2008, the petitioner/complainant was in default in payment of four next installments as noted hereinabove.

Had the petitioner/complainant made payment of the installments, which had fallen due on 16.01.2009, 16.02.2009, 16.03.2009 and 16.04.2009, there could have been justification to dispute the levy of the charges, which the bank debited to his loan account on account of default in timely payment of the loan taken by him. That having not been done, the recovery of the said charges becomes justified.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.