- ICICI Bank Ltd., Main Branch at Karnal, SCO no.255-256, Sector-12, Urban Estate City Centre, Karnal, District Karnal, Haryana-132 001, IFSC Code: ICIC0000173, through its Regional Manager/Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.
Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member
Dr. Suman Singh…..Member
Argued by: Shri Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Amish Goel, counsel for the OPs.
(Jaswant Singh, President)
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that in the month of March 2018, an agent of the OPs approached the complainant and explained that ICICI Bank provide personal loan services at a very low rate of interest and loan payment can be received/taken in an easy installments and at that time told the complainant that bank/financial institution of the OPs are providing personal loan for a sum of Rs.3,50,000-4,00,000 at the interest rate of 8.5% per annum at a very minimum rate of interest as compared to other Banks/Financial Institutions. On the assurance of agent of the OPs, complainant gave an identity proofs as well as salary slips etc. and thereafter, agent of OPs obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers/forms with two blank cheques for granting/providing loan to the complainant and when the complainant asked him about filling up the forms then he stated that complainant that there are so many columns to be filled up and these columns/lines can be filled up only by an expert technical computer operator of the bank branch and assured the complainant that he will fill up the forms according to the schedule of installments and as per terms and conditions of loan agreement and some expenses for an amount of Rs.2500-3000/- will also be deducted from the said amount directly from the account of the complainant. The complainant was to pay the aforesaid loan amount in 42 installments i.e. approximately upto Rs.10,500/- per month. On 30.03.2018, the complainant received the amount of loan in his bank account and the complainant started to pay the aforesaid amount in installments and when in the month of October-November 2021 the complainant contacted the official/agent of the bank and requested him to give the NOC/Clearance Certificate after receiving the last 2 installments as he had already paid 40 installments. But OPs did not issue the NOC and told the complainant that approximately 9 installments are still due towards the complainant in his bank loaning account. On the request of complainant, OPs provided a loan account statement. On perusal of the same, it transpired that only an amount of Rs.3,68,585/- has been transferred/paid in lieu of loan amount of Rs.3,80,000/- . It is further alleged that the schedule rate of interest levied was 15.49% with additional rate of interest 24% instead of 8.5% per annum illegally and arbitrarily and also applied the schedule of 51 installments of an amount of Rs.10,693/- each instead of 42 installments upto Rs.10,500/- each. The complainant made complaints/application to the dealing officer to look into the matter and to provide the copies of original documents with two blank cheques of the complainant which they have received at the time of granting loan but initially the official of the bank assured the complainant to take necessary legal action in the matter in dispute and also assured to get the correction done in the alleged excess/illegal schedule and then started to make one or another false excuses trying to linger the matter. Lastly on 17.01.2022, OPs refused to take any action against the officials of the OPs, who are misguiding the innocent customer by concealing the true and material facts and terms and conditions of such schedule. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.01.2022 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. Due to this illegal act of the OPs, complainant has suffered financial loss, harassment, mental pain and agony. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.
2. On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the dispute between the parties is in the nature of a suit for rendition of accounts which is not covered under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that Mr. Pritam Singh had approached the bank for personal loan and bank after considering his request and accessing his eligibility bank had sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- @ 15.49 for a tenure of 48 months on March 30, 2018 vide loan account no.LPKNL00037195549 in accordance with the agreement copy and Most Important Information (MII) duly signed by him. The said credit facility was sanctioned and disbursed based on receipt of application and agreement copy duly authenticated by him. The rate of interest @ 15.49% per annum levied on his aforementioned loan account is in accordance with the agreement copy and MII duly signed by him. The OP bank had never offered the complainant, interest rate of 8.5% per annum. The loan was availed by the borrower in 2018 and he had made payment towards 40 EMIs. As per the Bank records, customer had never approached the bank disputing rate of interest levied on his loan account. After four year of availing the loan, the complainant is claiming that he was offered ROI @ 8.5%. At the time of availing the loan, complainant was fully aware of rate of interest, tenure of the loan, equated monthly installments alongwith other details and same were clearly explained to the complainant at the time of disbursal of loan. It is further pleaded that on various occasions, the EMI payments have been remained unpaid hence charges were levied as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As per statement of customer’s loan account, he had made payment towards 40 EMIs and still there are 9 pending EMIs. Since there are outstanding dues pending on the loan account, the OP bank shall be constrained to continue the collection follow up against the said loan account. It is further submitted that complainant approached the bank for personal loan and bank after considering his request had sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- @ 15.49% for a tenure of 48 months on March 30, 2018 vide loan account no.LPKNL00037195549 in accordance with agreement copy and Most Important Information (MII) duly signed by him. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint
3. Parties then led their respective evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of loan account detail, transactions Ex.C1/A, Ex.C1/B, copy of bank account passbook Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4, AD postal Ex.C5, copy of aadhar card Ex.C6, copy of statement of installments Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 23.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manu Srivastava Ex.OPW1/A, copy of KEY Fact Statement Ex.OP1, copy of credit facility application Ex.OP2, copy of loan detail notice dated 20.01.2022 Ex.OP3, copy of loan account statement dated 10.06.2022 Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 11.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.
6. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant availed loan facility from the OPs for Rs.3,80,000/- @ 8.5% interest per annum but OPs transferred the amount of Rs.3,68,585/- only. The said loan amount was to be repaid in 42 installments. The OP charged the interest at the rate of 15.49% with additional rate of interest 24% instead of 8.5% per annum, which is illegally and arbitrarily. The complainant requested the OPs to issue the NOC after receiving the last 2 installments as he has already paid 40 installments. But OPs did not issue the NOC and told that nine installments are still due towards the complainant whereas complainant has paid all the loan amount to the OPs. Complainant requested the OPs several times not to charge the excessive amount and also not to charge excessive rate of interest but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued the dispute between the parties is in the nature of a suit for rendition of accounts which is not covered under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant had approached the bank for personal loan and bank had sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- @ 15.49 for a tenure of 48 months The OP bank had never offered the complainant, interest rate of 8.5% per annum. Complainant is a defaulter in making the payment of EMI on various occasions. Nine installments are still pending against the complainant, so question of issuing the NOC does not arise and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.
10. Complainant has challenged the rate of interest charged by OPs on the loan availed by him. Complainant alleged that OPs have charged the interest at the rate of 15.49% instead of 8.5% on the loan amount. On perusal of Key Fact Statement Ex.OP1 and Loan Account statement Ex.OP4, interest at the rate of 15.49% has been mentioned not at the rate of 8.5% as alleged by the complainant. Moreover, the dispute is in the present complaint with regard to rendition of loan accounts from March, 2018 to October, 2021 and same requires elaborate evidence and same cannot be decided in summary process under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the best platform to decide the matter in dispute is the Civil Court where elaborate and detailed testimony can be produced by the parties. In this regard, we have placed reliance upon the observations made in case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007 (4) CPJ Page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. Further, in case titled as M/s The Bills through its Proprietor Versus PNB reported in 1998 (1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been held that complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.
11. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down the aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is not maintainable before the Commission and is hereby dismissed with the liberty to complainant to approach the Court/Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired. In view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the complainant would be at liberty to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint before this Commission while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated: 28.05.2024
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Karnal.
(Vineet Kaushik) (Dr. Suman Singh)
Member Member
