Complaint Case No. CC/10/173, Complaint Case No. CC/10/174 and Complaint Case No. CC/10/175. Case: 1. Rahul J. Joshi, 2. Maya R. Joshi, 3. Harmesh R. Joshi Vs ICICI Bank Limited, Mumbai. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberComplaint Case No. CC/10/173, Complaint Case No. CC/10/174 and Complaint Case No. CC/10/175
JudgesS. B. Mhase (President) & S. R. Khanzode (Judicial Member)
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d)
Judgement DateFebruary 09, 2011
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


S. R. Khanzode (Judicial Member)

  1. The consumer disputes which are the subject matter of these three consumer complaints are settled by this common order since they involve identical facts and common question of law.

  2. Mr.Rahul J. Joshi, his wife Maya and son Harmesh are respectively complainants in consumer complaint nos.10/173, 10/174 & 10/175 and herein after referred by their first name. The complaints which were initially brought against opponent no.1-ICICI Bank Ltd. (herein after referred as the 'Bank'), opponent no.2-United Financial Services described is a franchisee commonly known as 'Direct Selling Agent' (in short a franchisee) of opponent no.1 to secure the business mainly in Loan against Shares/Government of India Bonds/K.V.P. i.e. Kisan Vikas Patra/ NSC/Mutual Funds and LIC policies. It is also alleged by the complainants that the activities which are the subject matter of these complaints were carried by opponent no.2 for gaining commercial advantage (commission/incentives/otherwise) from opponent no.1 as per their mutual business arrangement/agreement. Originally, the Reserve Bank of India, officials of the National Savings Institute and National Savings, as well as Director -Ministry of Finance, Government of India; were impleaded as parties but, subsequently, deleted by the complainants. It is the grievance of the complainants Rahul, his wife Maya and son Harmesh that the bank offered loans/funding facility for purchasing/acquiring 'Kisan Vikas Patra' (in short 'KVP') to them in the third week of March 2005 through opponent no.2-'Franchisee'. They presented a very lucrative scheme, whereby complainants were lured to accept and act upon the same. As per the said scheme, the bank was to grant overdraft facility to cover the amount to the extent of 90% funding to purchase KVP and rest of the money i.e.10% of the said requirement is to be kept by the complainants as margin money. The scheme was offered if 4 crores investment is made in this manner. It was also presented to the complainants that the funding/loan is to be offered by the bank on interest @ 6.75% p.a. The interest rate as applicable and payable on KVP was 8.41%. Thus, generating higher yield for the Rahul and his family than what is payable to the bank @ 6.75% for such funding/loan by them. Agreements were accordingly executed by the Rahul, Maya and Harmesh with the bank. The funding/loans were made as under:-

    Account No. Name Amount


To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT