Haryana

Karnal

CC/463/2020

Rishpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kamboj

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.463 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.29.10.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:13.06.2024

 

1. Rishipal son of Shri Ishwar Dayal,
2. Kusum Rani wife of Rishipal,
3. Sanjeev Kumar son of Shri Ishwr Dayal,
4. Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of Shri Sanjeev Kumar,
5. Pardeep Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash
6. Smt. Rajni Devi wife of Shri Pardeep Kumar, all resident of village Indergarh, post office Johar Majra, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. Sector-12, Market, Karnal through its Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd. Registered office ‘Land Mark’ Race Course Circle Vadodero 390007 India through its authorized person.

 

                                                                     …..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 Pardeep Kamboj, counsel

    for the complainants.

                   Shri Amish Goel, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainants have 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 complainants obtained a non-residential property loan of Rs.74,00,000/- which was disbursed to the complainants on 31.08.2016, vide loan account no.LBKNL00003058369. The said loan was to be paid by the complainants at the monthly installments of Rs.98819/- per month each. The tenure of the said loan amount was 10 years and the rate of interest was floating. The complainants started paying installments which was started from October, 2016 and the complainants have paid installment uptil 5^th November, 2019 i.e. 38 installments of Rs.98,819/- each i.e. total Rs.37,55,122/- and thereafter, on 28.11.2019, the complainants have paid Rs.24,00,000/- as prepayment out of the principal amount due against the said loan and again on 26.12.2019 the complainants further paid Rs.30,00,000/- as prepayment in principal due against the said loan. In this way, the complainants have paid total amount of Rs.91,55,122/- against the said loan amount of Rs.74,00,000/- including prepayment. Furthermore, the complainants have also paid Rs.98819/- on 05.12.2019 and Rs.98,819/- on 05.01.2019. In this way the complainants have paid total Rs.93,52,860/- uptil January, 2020. Thereafter, complainants approached the OP no.1 and asked to provide the detail of amount which is due against him for which he can repay the said amount. But every time OP no.1 prolong the matter one pretext or the other and lateron OPs issued a letter of prepayment dated 30.03.2020 to the complainants wherein the OPs have demanded total Rs.3,95,069/- from the complainants wherein Rs.1,32,972/- as principal outstanding, Rs.941/- as interest and Rs.2,61,156/- as prepayment charges and 4.72% on the outstanding principal. In this way, OPs were demanded total Rs.3,95,069/- from the complainants. After perusal of this letter, complainants approached the OPs and said that the amount of Rs.2,61,156/- which is charged as prepayment charges is illegal, null and void and against the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India but OPs were adamant to recover the said amount and threatened the complainants if he will not pay the same, the CIBIL score of the complainants will be spoil by the Bank. As such, the complainants have paid the entire amount of Rs.2,61,156/- under protest. Thereafter, complainants approached the OPs several times and requested to refund the amount of Rs.2,61,156/- to the complainants but did not do so and lastly refused to pay the same. Then complainants sent a legal notice dated 28.07.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainants had approached ICIC Bank for non-residential property loan and after considering their request and assessing the eligibility, Bank has sanctioned the loan of Rs.74,00,000/- vide loan account no.LBKNL00003058369. The said loan was repayable in 120 EMI’s of Rs.98,819/- including interest as per agreement. It is submitted that the loan availed for Business and it clearly shown as per attached End Use letter. With regard to pre-payment charges on the loan account no. LBKNL00003058369 is as per facility agreement which states as under:-

Adjustable Interest Rate;

1. Nil prepayment charges on Home Loans.
2. 4% on all loans (other than Home Loans) issued to non-individual borrower/co-Borrower on account prepaid and on all amounts tendered by the Borrower/Co-Borrower towards prepayment of the facility during the last one year from the date of final prepayment.

        It is further pleaded that the prepayment charges on the loan account no.LBKNL00003058369, the Bank submits that Rishi Pal is the borrower and Kusam Rani, Sanjeev Kumar, Pushpa Devi, Pardeep Kumar and Rajni Devi are the co-borrowers and as per the RBI Circular no.RBI/2019-20/29 DBR.Dir.BC.no.08/13.03.00/ 2019-20 dated August 2, 2019 has clarified that banks shall not charge foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalties on any floating rate term loan sanctioned, for purposes other than business, to individual borrowers with or without co-applicant(s). It is further pleaded that as per RBI circular on prepayment charges, the same is also updated on the bank website. The loan account no. LBKNL00003058369 is for Business purpose; as the End use of the loan was for business purpose, hence the prepayment charges are applicable and the Bank could not accede customer’s request for refund of pre-payment charges. Further the loan account no. LBKNL00003058369 stands closed. OPs earlier received said customer’s complaint through Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi-2 registered vide reference no.201920007015970 and 201920016004727 from Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh registered vide reference no.16363 and OPs have suitably replied to the customer vide his email dated February 07, 2020. It is further pleaded that the letter of prepayment dated 30.03.2020 and the prepayment charges, charged by the Bank is as per agreement. . There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 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 complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of prepayment loan account Ex.C1, copy of loan account statement Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, acknowledgement Ex.C5, copy of order dated 13.10.2020 Ex.C6 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 statement of account Ex.OP1, copy of facility Agreement Ex.OP2, copy of sanction letter Ex.OP3, copy of undertaking regarding investment in plant and machinery Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 03.10.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainants obtained a non-residential property loan of Rs.74,00,000/-. The tenure of the said loan amount was 10 years. The complainants have paid Rs.93,52,860/- upto January 2020. OPs issued a letter of prepayment dated 30.03.2020 to the complainants wherein the OPs have demanded total Rs.3,95,069/- wherein Rs.1,32,972/- as principal outstanding, Rs.941/- as interest and Rs.2,61,156/- as prepayment charges and 4.72% on the outstanding principal. The entire loan amount was returned and nothing was due against the complainants, but the OPs have charged the pre-closure charges of Rs.2,61,156/- illegally. Complainants are entitled for the refund of pre-closure charges charged by the OPs Complainants requested the OPs several times to refund the abovesaid amount alongwith interest but OPs did not pay the same 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 that the pre-closure charges are justified in accordance with the agreed terms of the loan agreement and as per the RBI Circular no.RBI/2019-20/29 DBR.Dir.BC.no.08/13.03.00/ 2019-20 dated August 2, 2019. He further argued that the loan availed by the borrowers under floating rate of interest structure, if pre-closed, shall attract a pre-payment fee if either of the borrowers is a non-individual. The OPs have  rightly charged the prepayment charges from the complainants and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, in the month of September 2016, complainants availed a loan from the OPs and said loan was to be repaid in 120 monthly installment of Rs.98,819/- and the tenure of the loan was 10 years. It is also admitted that complainants had repaid entire loan amount in the month of January, 2020 and OPs have charged pre-closure charges of Rs.2,61,156/-.

11.           The OPs have charged the pre-closure charges on the basis of Circular no.RBI/2019-20/29 DBR.Dir.BC.no.08/13.03.00/ 2019-20 dated August 2, 2019 wherein it has clarified that “bank shall not charged foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalties on home loans/all floating rate term loans sanction to individual borrowers.  It is also clarified that banks shall not charge foreclosure charges/pre payment penalties on any floating rate term loan sanctioned, for purpose other than business, to individual borrower with or without co-obligant(s).”

12.           The individual is defined as under:-

“An individual is that which exists as a distinct entity. Individuality (or self-hood) is the state or quality of being an individual; particularly (in the case of humans) of being a person unique from other people and possessing one's own needs or goals, rights and responsibilities”.

13.           The complainant has alleged that the complainant has paid the pre-closure charges under protest and he is entitled to refund the same. The onus to prove his case was upon the complainant but the complainants have miserably failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has not placed on record any document from which it can be ascertained that he has paid the foreclosure charges under protest and complainant is entitled to refund the same. In the present case complainants have taken the loan for Business Purpose and this fact is proved from the undertaking given by complainants regarding investment in plant and machinery Ex.OP4 dated 31.08.2016 and this fact is not denied by the complainants. Hence, the complainants are not entitled for claimed relief.

14.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated:13.06.2024                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)    

                     Member                   Member