BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1]  Brij Bhushan Aggarwal son of late Sh.Amar Chand Aggarwal,

2]  Kiran Aggarwal w/o Brij Bhushan Aggarwal,

3]  Naresh Goyal s/o late Sh.Amar Chand Aggarwal,

4]  Sangeeta Goyal w/o Naresh Goyal,

5]  Rakesh Goyal s/o late Sh.Amar Chand Goyal,

6]  Veena Goyal w/o Rakesh Goyal,

    All residents of House No.1130, Sector 33, Chandigarh.

…..Complainants

                 V E R S U S

1]  ICICI Bank Ltd., Corporate Office : Land Mark, Race Course circle, Vadodara Pin 390007, Gujarat.

2]  ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla, Complex, Mumbai PIN 400051, Maharashtra.

3]  Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, SCO No.174-175, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                 PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Krishan Gopal Sharma, Counsel for Complainants.

          Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs.

PER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         The complainants, in response to the offer letter of OPs (Ann.C-1), got converted their previous loan account into Money Saver Home Loan Scheme, as such the balance outstanding amount was transferred into new loan account NO.0013005007625, opened on 01.11.2007.  A Loan Agreement, dated 1.11.2007 (Ann.C-2) was also executed.  As per the offer of OPs vide Ann.C-1, the complainants were to pay Rs.1.00 lacs every month and the loan was to close in 89 months.

         In the meantime, complainants for purchase of another House No.1130, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh, applied for another Home Loan to OPs for Rs.160.00 lacs under Money Saver Home Loan Scheme, whereupon OPs sanctioned Rs.1,59,99,990/- vide letter dated 24.12.2007, subject to deposit of Rs.1.00 lac each month for 80 months.  This loan commenced from 1.2.2008.

         It is averred that the complainants used to deposit the stipulated installments as well as deposit of Rs.1.00 lac in both the accounts, as per the agreed terms and conditions of Ann.C-1.  Even, to ensure the non-occurrence of any default, complainants had even deposited amount in excess. In the first loan account, against the balance of Rs.26.00 lacs (for 26 months), Rs.30.05 lacs were deposited and similarly, in the second loan account, against the balance of Rs.24.00 lacs (for 24 months), Rs.28.40 lacs were deposited.

         But to the utter surprise of the complainants, the OPs have shown inflated outstanding in the statement of accounts in respect of both the loan accounts (Ann.C-3 to C-5), which cannot be arrived at, as agreed vide Offer Letter Ann.C-1.  The OPs have neither supplied the copy of the sanction letter nor of the loan agreement etc., to the complainant, though it was mandatory.  The same were supplied only when the matter was taken up with Banking Ombudsman (Ann.C-6 & C-7).  It is averred that timely repayment of loan installments against both loan accounts have been confirmed by the OPs vide Ann.C-8; but even then the outstanding amount had been shown.  This matter was taken and being brought to the notice of OPs several times vide letters Ann.C-9 to C-11, but to no avail and the OPs, instead sent statement of home loan account showing amount due as Rs.89,20,316/-, which is in violation of Ann.C-1.  Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]       OPs No.1 to 3 filed joint reply pleading that the loan agreement entered into between the parties was based on floating rate of interest. The document relied upon by the complainants is an introduction letter only and did not pertain to the loan agreements entered into between the parties. It is averred that the amount received by the Bank are reflected in the statement of accounts.  It was further clarified that the loan will be closed on payment of full amount, as per terms & conditions of the loan agreement. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations of complainant, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]       The main contention of the complainants is that despite timely repayment of loan installments, as per the agreed terms & conditions (Ann.C-1), against both the loan accounts, which was even confirmed by the OPs vide Ann.C-8, still the outstanding amount had been shown against their loan accounts, which is in violation of Ann.C-1.

6]       Whereas on the contrary, the OPs, while denying any deficiency in service, in their joint written statement have pleaded that the loan was based on floating rate of interest as per the terms & conditions of the agreement and was supposed to be closed on payment of full/complete loan amount.  Moreover, the amount received by the Bank is clearly reflected in the statement of accounts.

7]       Annexure C-1 is the offer letter issued by the OPs and Ann.C-2 is the Facility Agreement executed between the parties. The relevant portion of Ann.C-1 is reproduced as under:-

“This is in regard to your proposal of home loan under Money Saver.  As per your home loan requirement of Rs.200 lacs, the EMI comes to 2,36,827/- @11.75% ROI for 15 yrs.  As per money Saver if you deposit Rs.1.00 lacs every month the loan will be closed in 89 months.  The amount saved in money saver account every month has to be kept and not to be withdrawn till the closure of loan.  After the closure of loan the whole amount can be withdrawn at any time. (Rs.89.00 lacs). The liquidation of amount saved in money saver account will be at your discretion subject to tenure of loan period.

8]       Admittedly vide Ann.C-1, the OP Bank has given the option/right to the complainants to make the payment of EMIs plus Rs.1.00 lakh towards the money saver account and consequently, the loan was to be closed/cleared in 89 months.  It is settled proposition of law that the agreement Ann.C-2 is not to be read in isolation, but it is required to be read along with Ann.C-1 in harmony. 

9]       After taking into consideration both the documents Ann.C-1 & C-2, the only conclusion is that the complainant was liable to pay the EMIs of the loan amount along with Rs.1.00 lacs as money saver and subsequently, the loan was to be closed/cleared in 89 months. The fact that the complainants have made the payments of EMIs along with Rs.1.00 lacs towards money saver account regularly and did not commit any default, is not disputed by the OPs. 

10]      In order to clinch the matter and to come to the conclusion, it will not be out of place to state that the said Agreement Ann.C-2 was executed between the parties subsequent to the letter Ann.C-1.  Therefore, the letter Ann.C-1 & C-2 are to be read in consonance with each other and not independently or in isolation.

11]      Since there is no provision in the letter Ann.C-1 with regard to floating rate of interest and it speaks only with regard to payment of the EMIs as well as Rs.1.00 lacs towards money saver account for 89 months.  Therefore, the OP Bank is not entitled to charge the floating rate of interest arbitrarily @14.54% P.A. instead of Rs.11.75% P.A. as the loan was to be closed/cleared in 89 months only, if the complainant made the regular payment of EMIs along with Rs.1.00 lacs towards money saver account. The OPs in the reply as well as in the written arguments, had not at all disputed that the complainants are not making regular payment of EMIs as well as Rs.1.00 lacs as money saver.   

12]      Judged from every angle as well as going through the entirety of the facts & circumstances of the case and document, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves to be partly allowed in favour of the complainants and against the OPs.  Accordingly, the complaint stands partly allowed. The OPs are directed to recover the loan amount from the complainants, as per the Offer made by them vide Annexure C-1. However, the complaint with regard to other reliefs, as prayed for in the Prayer Clause of the complaint, is held to be pre-mature as the loan has yet not been closed.  There is no order as to compensation and costs.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. The file be consigned.