G.RAMACHANDRAN vs ICICI BANK LIMITED

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, Bench II (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No.615 of 2008 - ICICI Bank Limited Vs G. Ramachandran. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was partly set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant applied for loan from Employees '' Provident Fund organization to complete his construction and loan of Rs.75,000/- was sanctioned by Employees '' Provident Fund organization and cheque dated 11.9.2003 worth Rs.75,000/- was sent by Employees '' Provident Fund organization to OP for crediting in Complainant/Petitioner ''s account which was not credited. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP/respondent, complainant filed complaint with a prayer to credit the cheque amount of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. interest and further pay compensation and cost. OP contested complaint and submitted that as cheque did not bear correct account number; hence, amount could not be credited in complainant ''s account and awaiting instructions from their Head Office. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to credit Rs.75,000/- along with 24% p.a. interest in complainant ''s account and further pay Rs.15000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the respondent was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and order directing to credit Rs.75,000/- was set aside and rest of the order was upheld against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly directed OP to credit Rs.75,000/- in petitioner ''s account, but learned State Commission has committed error in setting aside this order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that on account of illegible/wrong account number, amount of cheque could not be credited in the petitioner ''s account and order of State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that cheque was sent by Employees '' Provident Fund organization along with letter to OP for crediting Rs.75,000/- in petitioner ''s SB A/c, but his SB Account number shown in the letter is not legible. Later on, on 27.10.2003 petitioner wrote letter to OP regarding non-crediting of Rs.75,000/- in his SB Account, but in that letter too he has mentioned petitioner ''s different SB Account number at two places. In such circumstances, this amount could not have been credited in petitioner ''s SB Account. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not proved this fact that Rs.75,000/- has been credited in any one ''s account and debited in the Employees '' Provident Fund organization A/c. In such circumstances, petitioner was not entitled to get credit of Rs.75,000/- from OP and learned State Commission has not committed any error in modifying the order of learned District Forum to this extent. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.