ICICI Bank Limited & Anr vs Manoj Kumar & Anr

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 26.03.2018 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal no. 753 of 2017, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum passed in CC no. 324 of 2015 has been dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who states that the District Forum has wrongly mentioned in the judgment that the Bank was charging fixed rate of interest whereas it is a fact that the Bank was charging floating rate of interest and the same was regularly communicated to the borrower, therefore, the order of the District Forum wherein the Bank had been directed to issue a statement within 45 days giving calculations on the basis of floating rate of interest and to adjust the amount accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order has been complied, however, the District Forum has imposed Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. He further states that the State Commission has also wrongly recorded that no communication regarding interest of rate was sent when the interest rate was increased from 8% to 15%. This is an incorrect observation made by the State Commission which is against the evidence filed by the petitioner and on this basis the appeal has been dismissed.

I have considered the case on its merits. It is seen that the District Forum has ordered the petitioner Bank to issue a statement with calculations on the basis of floating rate of interest and adjust the amount if any, excess paid by the complainant by remitting back to the complainant and if the position emerges otherwise, the complainant will pay the same to the Bank.

I don't find anything wrong in the order on the merit of the case, since, the bank admittedly has been charging floating rate of interest, therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the District Forum. Thus the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner Bank. Now the only question remains that the Bank has to pay cost of compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

Hon'ble Apex court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and Another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC) observed;

"2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers' skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category."

The Apex Court further held;

"10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers' office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and, to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of ₹15,000/-even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of ₹12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded ₹3,000/-towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to ₹15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for ₹15,000/-.

Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani.

We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether ₹25,950/- for a claim of ₹15,000/-, apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins."

In view of the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank (Supra), and the paltry amount of Rs.25,000/- only being involved I am not inclined to entertain the present revision petition. No question of law is involved in the present revision petition.

According, the present revision petition no. 3391 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage.