Dismissed

Kamlesh Jain Son of Late Shri Ghanshyam Lal v. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. through

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2024CFA/288/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a decree allowing recovery of wrongly deducted funds from a savings account, the High Court upheld the trial court's award of interest at the standard savings account rate, rejecting the plaintiff's claim for a higher rate of 24% per annum.

What did the court decide?

S.B. Civil First Appeal dismissed; interest awarded remains at the rate payable to savings bank account holders.

Kamlesh Jain Son of Late Shri Ghanshyam Lal Vs… — Consumer Protection | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:16462]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 288/2023

¶4

Kamlesh Jain Son Of Late Shri Ghanshyam Lal, Aged About 71 Years, R/o S-4 Kabir Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶5

----Plaintiff-Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd Through, (I). Secretary Icici Bank Ltd Registered Office Landmark, Race Course Circle, Baroda-390007. (Ii). Chief Manager Icici Bank Shreeji Tower, Ahinsa Circle C- Scheme, Jaipur.

¶8

----Defendants-Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Sinha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment / Order

¶11

04/04/2024

¶12

Instant civil first appeal is preferred by plaintiff-appellant aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 31.01.2023 in Civil Suit No.118/2018 (1692/2012) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby learned trial Court allowed the civil suit for recovery of money against the respondents-defendants for a sum of ₹57,240/- with interest from 01.01.2010 at the rate of interest payable to the account holders of saving bank.

¶13

Learned counsels for the parties has pointed out that the issue in the matter pertains to “interest and cost”, therefore, the appeal be heard on merits. After considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of admission.

[2024:RJ-JP:16462]

[CFA-288/2023]

(2 of 6)

Learned counsel for appellant while referring the issue would submitted that the respondent-bank has withdrawn ₹57,240/without any authority from the saving account of plaintiff, therefore, a suit for recovery was filed but the trial Court has awarded the interest only at the rate of interest payable to saving bank account holders. He further submitted that the plaintiff has claimed ₹40,000/- as interest prior to institution of suit and further 24% per annum from the date of institution of suit but the trial Court has not considered this issue despite the fact that the respondent-bank has failed to justify deduction of ₹57,240/- from saving bank account of appellant-plaintiff. At last he submitted that the appellant-plaintiff is a senior citizen and it is hard earned money so he is entitled to interest as claimed by the plaintiff.

¶18

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents on the ground that a joint account of plaintiff and his wife was maintained in the respondent no.2-bank and there were outstanding amount against credit card issued to the plaintiff, therefore, the bank has deducted ₹57,240/- from the saving bank account of the plaintiff against outstandings of credit card. He further submitted that it was duty of the plaintiff to bring all necessary facts on record while filing the plaint but he failed to do so, therefore, he not only concealed the fact but filed a frivolous suit without disclosing the outstanding amount against the credit card. He further submitted that the deduction by the bank was bonafide but the trial Court has directed refund of original amount, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any interest from the respondent-bank. He also submitted that the deduction was from saving bank account and if the money was kept in the saving bank

[2024:RJ-JP:16462]

[CFA-288/2023]

(3 of 6)

account then the plaintiff was entitled to earn interest as directed by the trial Court.

¶23

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

A suit under Order 37 CPC was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of ₹57,240/- as principal amount and ₹40,000/- as interest. Further, claimed interest of 24% per annum from the date of institution of suit. The trial Court has allowed leave to defence on 03.05.2013 to the defendants, thereafter, a written statement was filed by the defendants. After framing the issues, both the parties have led their evidence and after recording the evidence, the civil suit was partially admitted in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and following decree was passed:-

¶25

“okn] oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k e; [kpkZ fMdzh fd;k tkdj vkns”k fn;s tkrs gSa fd oknh] izfroknh cSad ls U;k; fu.khZr jkf”k 57]240@& #i;s ¼lrkou gtkj nks lkS pkyhl #i;s½ rFkk mDr jkf”k ij fnukad 01&01&2010 ls rk olwyh] izfroknh cSad esa le;≤ ij cpr [kkrs esa tek jkf”k ij ns; C;kt dh jkf”k] izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA ”

¶26

A perusal of decree attached with the copy of judgment clearly indicate that the trial Court has allowed the cost to the plaintiff and accordingly, the cost was added in the decree. The trial Court has allowed the interest from 01.01.2010 till recovery of principal amount of ₹57,240/-.

¶27

A perusal of plaint clearly indicated that the plaint was filed on 14.12.2012, wherein a fact was mentioned that plaintiff was operating a demat account for dealing in shares and same was attached with the saving bank account maintained in respondentbank. According to plaintiff on 01.01.2010, the respondent-bank

[2024:RJ-JP:16462]

[CFA-288/2023]

(4 of 6)

had deducted ₹57,240/- without any consent of plaintiff and on enquiry no satisfactory reply was given to plaintiff. The defence of the respondents-defendants was that plaintiff had obtained a credit card no.4477463581516008 from defendant-bank, wherein plaintiff had also given consent for deduction of dues of credit card from same saving bank account no.001201013034 from which deduction of ₹57,240/- was made by the bank.

¶32

A perusal of cross-examination of plaintiff clearly indicate that the bank account for which this claim was made was in joint name with his wife Manju Jain and she was not arrayed as plaintiff or a party. Initially this PW1 has denied issuance of a credit card but later he admitted the application form along with terms and conditions Ex.D1 bears his signature. He also admitted signature on declaration from Ex.D2. A fact is also admitted that he also filed a complaint before banking lokpal and did not persuaded the complaint before the banking lokpal. DW1-Ramavtar came in support of claim of defendant who was not aware about the transactions and details of dues relating to credit card.

¶33

Having considered the evidence on record, the trial Court while adjudicating on issue nos.1 and 2 concluded that the plaintiff had given an authority for auto debit of dues against his credit card from saving account maintained by the bank. The conclusion of trial Court clearly indicated that, if the dues of the credit card as claimed by the bank were outstanding against the plaintiff and irrevocable authority was given to bank then bank was authorized to deduct the dues against the credit card from the saving bank account maintained by the bank. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the

[2024:RJ-JP:16462]

[CFA-288/2023]

(5 of 6)

plaintiff has given irrevocable authority to the bank for deduction of credit card from his saving Account.

¶38

Since, the trial Court on the basis of inadequate evidence of DW1 decided the issue no.1 in favour of plaintiff, therefore, considering the material on record, the plaintiff was found entitled for refund of ₹57,240/-. The trial Court concluded that the defendant has failed to establish that ₹57,240/- was outstanding against the plaintiff. Herein, the dispute between the parties was bonafide and the trial Court had allowed leave to defence on 03.05.2013. The plaintiff had not only denied several facts, which were established by the defendants from cross examination after exhibiting the document signed by the plaintiff, which clearly indicate that the plaintiff had filed this suit without disclosing proper and correct facts. Moreover, the bank account was maintained jointly with Manju Jain and she was not arrayed as a party. Herein, the respondents had not challenged the judgment and decree, therefore, the issue no.1 was rightly considered and decided in favour of plaintiff but looking to admission in the matter, the trial Court has rightly decided issue no.2 in favour of defendants.

¶39

The principal amount of ₹57,240/- was deposited in saving bank account when same was deducted by the bank and the rate of interest payable to saving bank account holders was already awarded by the trial Court and looking to facts and circumstances of the case, the same rate appears to be appropriate and justifiable. The plaintiff cannot claim an exorbitant rate of interest on the basis of decree, which found entitlement in favour of plaintiff for refund of certain amount, deducted by the bank as

[2024:RJ-JP:16462]

[CFA-288/2023]

(6 of 6)

outstanding against the credit card issued in the name of plaintiff. The trial Court has rightly considered the issue nos.1 and 2 and there is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the trial Court.

¶44

In view of aforesaid, the plaintiff has no ground to agitate the rate of interest. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

In view of aforesaid, S.B. Civil First Appeal, preferred aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 31.01.2023 in Civil Suit No.118/2018 (1692/2012) is hereby dismissed.

¶46

No order as to cost.

¶47

Decree be drawn accordingly.

¶48

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶49

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶50

Arun/531

Kamlesh Jain Son of Late Shri Ghanshyam Lal v. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Jain Son of Late Shri Ghanshyam Lal v. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milap Chand Son of Shri Moti Chand, Vs Shri Vimal Chand Jain Son of Shri Moti Chand Jain

Gopi and Ors. Vs Ganga Ram and Ors.

Pratap Son of Ram Chandra, Vs Bhawani Shankar Son of Laxman

Zahida Begum W/O Late Mohammad Zafar. Vs Nirmala Bai W/O Mohanlal Galav

Vansh @ Bhola S/O Vishnu Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendar Singh S/O Umrav Vs Saroj W/O Jaisingh