BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.692 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.309 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT

Between:

Yarlagadda Suguna Mani, rep. by
her Power of Attorney Holder
Y.Krishna Murthy S/o Seetha Ramaiah
R/o Governorpeta, Vijayawada

1.  ICICI Bank rep. by its Manager
Home Finance Co., Ltd.,
5-14-8m, 1^st Gayatri Nagar, Ring road,
Vijayawada-008

2.  ICICI Bank, rep. by its Authorized Signatory
ICICI Bank Towers, Regional Office
HL Collection, 180+DPD, Level-6,
Tower 2 North Wing, Gachibowli
Hydeabad-032                                                                                              

Counsel for the Appellants                    

Counsel for the Respondents                

QUORUM:  

                       SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

THURSDAY 

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

***

1.    

2.     on 25.10.2005the complainant had availed home loan of`24,85,000/-   `33,532/- and the interest chargeable was 10.5% p.a.       st    

3.            

4.            

5.              6.     

7.    The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the respondents had not charged excess interest than the agreed rate of interest and the borrower is liable to pay additional interest for the delay caused in payment of installments. 

8.             `2,00,000/- paid by the appellant on 11.11.2011.

9.            

10.           

1.            

2.            

3.    

11.           : It is an undisputed fact that the appellant’s husband obtained home loan to the tune of`24,85,000/- from the respondents on 25.10.2005 and the appellant and their daughter are the co-applicants and the loan is repayable in 120 equated monthly installments @`33,532/-.The rate of interest chargeable is 10.5% and the borrowers of the loan paid 42 installments and thereafter committed default whereby the respondents initiated proceedings under SARFASI Act for recovery of the balance loan amount.

12.   `4 lakh and`2 lakh paid by the appellant during pendency of the complaint and that the respondents calculated the interest for a period of 265 months instead of 120 months.

13.   

14.            

15.   `8,00,000/- by 15.10.2011. The chief metropolitan magistrate appointed an advocate as commissioner to take possession of the secured properties.

16.    

21.;

“8.Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that consumer fora had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the pendency of the original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Counsel for the petitioner – bank has invited our attention to the provisions of;

18.      

34.      (1)

(2)”.

9.        ”.

22.

17.    

18.   

                                                                                                                                      KMK*