BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABADF.A.No.845 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.996 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Between:
Sri Aged about 44 years,
R/o Plot no. 21, Lakshmi Enclave,
3-6-158/5, near
Maredpally, Secunderabad Appellant/complainant
- M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd
Regd.
Vadodra – 390007.
- M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd
Acting for ICICI Home Finance Company ltd
Begumpet Branch, Secunderabad
Rep. by its Branch Manager Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant M/s B.S.Prasad
Counsel for the Respondent M/
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE TWENTY DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri
***
1. The complainant has filed appeal contending that the District Forum has not considered the evidence in proper perspective and allowed part of claim for refund of switch charges and disallowed consequential relief of the refund of excess collected interest and compensation for `5,00,000/-. And that the District Forum failed to consider the contractual obligations in relation to the rate of interest which should be in accordance with directions of the RBI and that the variation in rate of interest was not informed to the appellant and that the respondent-bank in order to divert the attention of the appellant as to the enhanced rate of interest, unilaterally extended period of repayment schedule.
2. The appellant availed housing loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd and on agreement, the respondent-bank had taken over the loan from LCIHF under loan account bearing number LBHYD 00000710800 to be repaid @7.25% in 252 EMIs @ `12,207/- per month. The appellant came to know after going through statement of account dated 19.03.2008 that the respondent-bank charged excess interest than that was agreed and it was done without issuing notice to him. The respondent-bank obtained the appellant’s signature on printed format without explaining him the terms and conditions thereof. The appellant got issued notice on 21.03.2008 and 12.06.2008 demanding the respondent-bank to foreclose the loan amount and refund the excess collected amount.
3. Further, it is the case of the appellant that the respondent-bank offered him switch over to new scheme whereby the rate of interest was reduced from 13.7% to 9.75% and the respondent-bank reduced the rate of interest after collecting 1.7% outstanding loan amount , `20,603/- towards switch charges from the appellant. The respondent-bank had replied that it had intimated the appellant through post about the change in rate of interest and it had not explained why the switch charges were collected from him.
4. The respondent-bank resisted the claim on the premise that it had informed the appellant from time to the change in rate of interest and that the appellant opted for floating rate of interest and he agreed to pay switch charges of `20,603/- for reducing the rate of interest from 13.7% to 9.7% and respondent-bank applied concession of rate of interest of 3.75% to the loan account of the appellant. It is stated that the respondent-bank charged rate of interest as per the terms of sanction letter, loan agreement and guidelines of RBI.
5. The appellant filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A19. The respondents filed their affidavit evidence and the documents Exs.B1 to B6.
6. The District Forum awarded refund of switch charges of `20,603 and interest thereon @12% p.a. from 9.04.2009 and Rs.2
7. The counsel for the appellant and the respondent-bank submitted written arguments.
8. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside?
9. The appellant of loan of `12,30,859/- from LICHC and on agreement with the appellant, the respondent-bank taking over the loan from the LICHC are beyond any dispute. The appellant contends that the respondent-bank had charged excess amount towards interest and it had not informed him the change in rate of interest as also it had unilaterally increased the repayment period of loan. The appellant contends that the respondent bank has not informed him about the change in rate of interest and acted in such a manner so as to avoid his attention towards variance in the terms of the contract.
10. The respondent bank has contended that it has clearly mentioned the floating rate of interest was subject to changes dependent on the change in floating rate reference and that the appellant was under an obligation to pay interest at such reset rate of interest and that there was no violation of provisions of Contract Act and in regard to reversal of switch fees the respondent bank through email dated 3.7.2010 that the appellant can opt for switch in the interest rate and he was required to execute a revised agreement and pay the applicable switch fees which is non-refundable and cannot be adjusted any outstanding dues.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that the appeal, F.A.No.315 of 2012 filed by the respondent bank was dismissed by this Commission on 28.12.2012 holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank and the appellant is not entitled to claim the switch fees. It was held:
Admittedly the complainant is a literate person and he should have refused to sign on blank any complaint to the police in the said context. He did not issue any legal notice immediately after the alleged obtaining of his signature on blank
12. As the order of the District Forum was set aside by the order in F.A.No.315 of 2012, they are remains nothing to be considered in the instant appeal. It appears the appellant has not filed any revision against the order dated 28.12.2012. As such, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 28.12.2012 in F.A.No.315 of 2012. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
* DT.22.03.2013
