Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/228

ICICI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AASHIMA CHANANA - Opp.Party(s)

23 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments: 23.05.2016

Date of Decision: 02.06.2016

Appeal No. 228/11

 

(Arising out of the order dated 18.04.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.431/09 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-Central, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

2^nd Floor,   Videocon Tower,

Block E-1, Jhandewalan Ext.,

New Delhi.                                                                                           …..........Appellant

 

Versus

M.s Aashima Chanana,

Through her attorney Sh. N.K. Chanana,

R/o Z-1, West Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008.                                                                                     ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The appellant was OP before District Forum in Complaint Case No.431/09. It is aggrieved by order dated 18.04.2011 vide which  complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to reschedule the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @8.9% per annum on reducing balance basis, the rescheduled statement with due adjustment of the amount received from the complainant was to be given and balance amount, if any, was to be paid by complainant in monthly instalment. The appellant was also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, for pain and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.
2. The case of the complainant was dual. According to her in the year-2007 she has taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- @8.9% interest with loan Account No.LADEL 0008956184 but the complainant was disbursed Rs.2,93,283/- after adjustment of one EMI. Later on, OP sent a letter that the entire amount was to be repaid in 60 equal instalments  of  Rs.6717/- and rate of interest would be 12.3% instead of 8.9%.  She has already paid Rs.2,28,378/- in 34 instalments up to October, 2009.  The OP sent copy of agreement only on 25.05.2009 in which entries about rate of interest were blank. That part of the case has not been believed by the District Forum. The District Forum found that interest was to start from 8.9% per annum and it could be  higher.

 

3. The other part of the complaint was regarding personal loan Account No. LPDEL 00005971877.  In 2006, the complainant requested for personal loan of Rs.84,000/- it was sanctioned but she was disbursed a sum of Rs.82,149/- after deducting Rs.1855/- as processing fee, contrary to RBI guidelines.  It charged 21.01 monthly interest whereas personal loan was agreed @9% per annum on reducing balance. The OP had illegally and arbitrary recovered Rs.20,000/- from complainant.  She wanted the OP to correct statement of account by applying rate of interest@8.9% per annum and adjust excess amount illegally recovered towards principal amount. According to her, the OP had illegally recovered Rs.21,851/-.

 

4. The OP filed a reply stating that agreed rate of interest was 21% for personal loan account, the complainant signed agreement after reading and understanding the same. It was mentioned in the credit facility application form that processing fee of Rs.1851/- would be  charged. The complainant did not maintain regular account and so cheque bouncing charges and other due charges were made applicable. The complaint was highlighted. It denied that complainant paid Rs.5000/- as processing fee.

 

5. The District Forum  observed that complainant was a school teacher in Ramjas School, Pusha Road, till Sept.,2008. Thereafter she was residing in USA. Such a person is not expected to sign a blank  papers, particularly for taking car loan.

 

6. However, the District Forum found that bank has not denied that it made available the copy of the loan agreement to the complainant as pleaded by her in para 10 of the complaint i.e. on 25.05.2009. Bank has not given any explanation under which the filled up loan form was not made available to the complainant within few days of sanction of loan.

 

7. The crux of the decision is that District Forum took silence of the bank to contradict the stand of the complainant in various letters that her signature were taken on blank papers, amounted to admission on the part of the bank.  Firstly, this  goes against the observations of the District Forum that in such like cases complainant could not be believed to have signed on blank papers.\

 

8. Secondly, the adverse inference drawn by District  Forum is  not sustainable under law in view  of the division bench decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in International Computer consultant Vs. House Computers Services (P) Ltd. 1997 (5) Apex decision Delhi 662.

 

9. The complainant could not be given any relief simply due to non reply by the bank or letters written by complainant that her signatures were taken on blank papers.

 

10. Regarding personal loan, the District Forum held that in para 14 of the complaint, the complainant pleaded that personal loan was sanctioned @9% per annum whereas in letter dated 22.10.2006 she mentioned that rate of interest was 10/12% per annum. Thus, complainant herself was not sure about rate of interest agreed upon. Personal loan is always granted at higher rate of interest.  Thus, the District Forum did not find any merit in the case of complaint in respect of personal loan for seeking refund of Rs.20,000/-.

 

11. In nut shell, the District Forum held that bank did not make available loan agreement papers for a long time and as such caused deficiency in service. The same resulted in causing harassment, pain and mental agony and that is why compensation and litigation of cost was allowed. I do not feel that said direction can be upheld.  Mere non supply of copy of loan agreement is not accountable.

 

12. The first direction regarding rescheduling loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @8.9% per annum is self contradictory to the findings at Page-6 of the impugned order. The same reads that rate of interest on car loan could have been above 8.9% also as the advertisements speaks about starting point interest @8.9% per annum.

 

13. The father of the respondent during the course of argument in appeal strongly relied upon the reply dated 29.08.2007 received by him under RTI Act. The same pertains to role of RBI in controlling rate of interest in a nationalised bank, whether RBI has controll over private bank business, whether RBI permits private banks to charge interest @10.5% to 12.5% within a period of three months from 01.03.2007 to 01.06.2007 on home loan.  All these questions are general in nature and are not relevant in the case in hand. It can be added that present case is not for home loan.

 

14. The father of appellant also referred to para 4 of the reply under RTI Act which lays down factors on which banks can decide Benchmark Prime Lending Rate.  That is the policy matter which cannot be gone into by courts.

 

15. The appeal succeeds and is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.

 

16. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy be sent to the District Forum for information.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                               ​