Chandigarh

DF-I

EA/125/2019

Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anurag Chaudhary, Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

NP Sharma

01 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                  

Execution Application No.	:	EA/125/2019
Date of Institution	:	29/05/2019
Date of Decision	:	01/07/2022

 

 

Surinder Singh, aged about 71 years s/o Sardar Mohan Singh r/o 2121, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh, partner Messrs. Surindra Vision & Surinder Radios Private Limited.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Anurag Chaudhary, Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, SCO No.180-182, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, UT 160009.
2. Anuj Aggarwal, Manager, ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, earlier at SCO No.180-182, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh UT, 160009 and presently situated at SCO No.337-338, 2^nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, UT 160022.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. N.P. Sharma, Advocate alongwith Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate, Counsel for complainant and Sh. Surinder Singh, complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, Counsel for Accused No.1 & 2 alongwith Sh. Anurag Chaudhary, accused No.1 in person.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.     This is an execution application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant against the accused/OPs for non-compliance of the final order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2693 of 2009. The said order is reproduced as under:-

         “We have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time. We are happy to note the on one suggestion the parties have agreed to settle the disputes, subject matter of the present Revision Petition, on the following terms:

1. The interest payable on the loan advanced by the Petitioner/Bank to the Respondent/ Complainant will be in terms of Clause E of the Home Equity Loan Agreement, entered into between the parties on 30.08.2005;
2. The floating rate of interest, as stipulated in the said clause @ 8.75% per annum, shall be revisable as per the guidelines issued by the Reserved Bank of India, relating to Home Equity Loans, from time to time;
3. A recasted statement of account, in terms of this settlement, after accounting for the interest already accepted by the Bank, shall be supplied to the Respondent/Complainant within eight weeks from today;
4. It is stated at the bar by the Ld Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/ Complainant that interest at the maximum rate of interest, viz., @ 16% per annum, as applicable in the case of a loan against the property, has already been realized by the Bank. If that be so, refund, if any, for the excess amount, computed in terms of this order, shall be granted within six weeks from the date of furnishing of the said statement; and
5. The parties shall remain bound by the above terms in so far as disbursement of loan, subject matter of the complaint, giving rise to the present Revision Petition, is concerned.

         The Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to cost.”

 

2.     Initially the consumer complaint (No.243 of 2008) of the complainant was allowed by this Commission (erstwhile Forum) vide order dated 21.10.2008.  The OPs challenged the said order in appeal (No.2261 of 2008) before the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh. The Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh vide its order dated 27.5.2009 partly accepted the appeal and modified the order of this Commission.  OPs further assailed the said order before the Hon’ble National Commission which was disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2014, as reproduced above.
3.     The case has been argued by the parties both orally as well as through written arguments.
4.     In nutshell the argument of the complainant is that the accused has not paid him a sum of ₹26,869/- at any stage of the case.  Since no cheque was received by him, there was no question of his encashing the same.  Another argument put forth by the complainant is that there was no order passed by either the Hon’ble National Commission or the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh or even this Commission (erstwhile Forum) to calculate the interest via adjustable floating rate of interest method in terms of clause (E).  Rather as on 2.12.2011, the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 27.5.2009 (EA/2) which was the last effective order which clearly upheld the order passed by this Commission (erstwhile Forum) dated 21.10.2008 (EA/1) permitting the OP to charge only fixed rate of interest which is reproduced as under :-

         “To overhaul the loan account(s) of the complainant taking the rate of interest as 9% per annum in respect of loan of Rs.One Crore and 11% per annum in respect of second loan of Rs.15,00,000/- by treating both these loans as Home Loan.”

 

5.     On the contrary, the argument put forth by the accused is that the order to be executed in the present execution application is the order of the Hon’ble National Commission which is compromise only and there is no other order in existence.  With regard to the refund of ₹26,869/- by the accused to the complainant is concerned, there is a written dispatch proof of the compliance letter in the matter of Surinder Singh Vs. ICICI Bank in the form of speed post letter sent to the complainant on 25.2.2015 alongwith the detailed account statement showing that the excess amount of ₹26,869/- available with the bank was refunded to the borrower on 12.12.2011. This dispatch proof being definite and unimpeachable piece of evidence has not been contested by the complainant during so many years since 2015 meaning thereby complainant must have received the aforesaid amount otherwise he would have written back to the accused for not having received the said amount. No such written communication in the form of some letter or email has been placed on record by the complainant in support of his averments. More so, the loan account was closed on 2.12.2011 and as per foreclosure calculations, excess amount was already refunded to the borrower on 12.12.2011.
6.     Further the counsel for the accused has argued that since nothing remains payable to the complainant, therefore, as per the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission that refund, if any, for the excess amount computed in terms of the order shall be granted within six weeks from the date of furnishing the said statement, gets complied with as there is no excess amount now payable after the payment of ₹26,869/-.
7.     From the above stated facts and arguments put forth by the parties, it is clear that the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission stands complied with. Moreover, the Hon’ble National Commission had ordered that the parties shall remain bound by the terms in so far as the disbursement of the loan, subject matter of the complainant giving rise to the revision petition is concerned. Notably the order of the Hon’ble National Commission is binding upon us being the final order and we cannot go beyond the same. Since all the terms and conditions of the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission have been fully complied with, and the parties are bound by the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, therefore, the relief claimed by the complainant, being devoid of merit, cannot be granted.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the instant execution application is dismissed with no order as to costs. The file be consigned.   
9.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/07/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member