ICICI BANK LTD. vs MOHAN LAL & ANR.

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.

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.

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

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inpsite of no proof of depositing amount with OP No. 1 and no proof to the fact that OP No. 2 was employee of OP No. 1, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and order be set aside.

Perusal of complaint reveals that complainant went to OP No.1 Bank for depositing Rs.1,00,000/- in the shape of FDR and OP No. 2 Vivek Sethi obtained signatures of complainant on some blank documents on 5.4.2006. It was further submitted that on 9.4.2006, complainant

went to Bank to collect FD and at that time OP No. 2 advised him for some other beneficial scheme carrying more rate of interest and obtained his signatures on some more papers. He has not pleaded that OP No. 2 was employee of OP No. 1. Perusal of complaint further reveals that he received courier on his shop i.e. Punjab Medical Hall meaning thereby, he was running Punjab Medical Hall and has also signed all the documents in English. Thus, it becomes clear that complainant was knowing English. Perusal of documents reveals that complainant signed documents of ICICI Prudential for obtaining life insurance coverage in which he has shown details of his family members including father, mother and brother. He has also replied to number of queries regarding his health and disease. By no stretch of imagination, it can be observed that while signing ICICI Prudential form and submitting all details, he intended to get FDR of R.1,00,000/-.

Complainant has not pleaded in the complaint that OP No. 2 Vivek Sethi was employee of OP No. 1. OPs were proceeded ex-parte before District Forum and in Memo of Appeal filed by both the OPs before learned State commission it was stated that Vivek Sethi was employee of ICICI Prudential Insurance and not employee of ICICI Bank Ltd. Complainant has not produced any evidence to substantiate that Vivek Sethi was employee of OP No. 1 and in such circumstances, learned State Commission committed error in observing that no evidence was produced by OPs to prove that Vivek Sethi was not employee of OP No. 1. No evidence has been led by complainant that OP No. 1 made services of OP No. 2 available to the complainant for obtaining fixed deposit receipt. Merely because Vivek Sethi obtained signatures of complainant in premises of OP No. 1, OP No. 2 can neither be treated employee, nor agent of OP No.1 and learned District Forum committed error in holding OPs liable being OP No. 2 agent/employee of OP No. 1.

Perusal of application form for demand draft/pay order signed by complainant further reveals that he wanted demand draft/pay order for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. In such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be observed that complainant went to ICICI Bank for getting FDR of Rs.1,00,000/-. Learned State commission also observed that a person having income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum would not get insurance policy for one lakh premium every year as he has several dependents. Perusal of insurance policy form reveals that only wife aged 58 years was depending on him and two children each 28 and 31 years cannot be held as depending on him and in such circumstances, he could very well have obtained insurance policy by paying premium of Rs.1,00,000/- per year.

When no amount has been deposited by complainant with OP No. 1, learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint against OP No. 1 and learned State commission further committed error in dismissing appeal qua OP No.1 and revision petition is to be allowed qua OP No. 1. OP No. 2 has not challenged order of learned State Commission.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 10.9.2012 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 561 of 2007 - ICICI Bank Ltd. & anr. Vs. Mohan Lal and order of District forum dated 8.3.2007 passed in Complaint No. 494/2006 - Mohan Lal Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Anr. is set aside against petitioner/OP No. 1 and complaint stands dismissed against OP No.1. Parties to bear their costs.