Haryana

StateCommission

A/497/2015

ANIL GUPTA AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

CHANDER SHEKHAR

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

               First Appeal No: 497 of 2015

                Date of Institution: 03.06.2015

        Date of Decision:  06.10.2015

1. Anil Gupta
2. Ashok Gupta, sons of Shri Suraj Bhan Gupta,]

All Residents of Ward No.3, Sukhdev Nagar, Part-I, HUDA Colony, Panipat and also residents of House No.137, Dyal Singh Colony, Old Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

                                      Appellants-Complainants

Versus

 

1.      ICICI Bank Limited, Landmark, Alkapuri, Race Course Road, Vadodra through its Managing Director.

 

2.      ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bank Kurla Complex, Mumbai, Mumbai-400051.

 

3.      ICICI Bank Limited, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.

 

4.      ICICI Bank Limited, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Branch Manager.  

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Chander Shekhar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The un-successful complainants are in appeal against the order dated November 10^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by them was dismissed.

2.           Anil Gupta and Ashok Gupta-complainants-appellants, raised loan of Rs.14.00 lacs from ICICI Bank Limited-Opposite Parties, vide agreement dated September 29^th, 2006 (Exhibit R-2). The loan amount was to be repaid in 180 monthly instalments alongwith interest spread over 15 years from November 10^th, 2006 to March 10^th, 2032. The interest to be charged was at floating rate. 

3.      The complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that the interest chargeable was at the rate of 11% per annum whereas the opposite parties charged interest at the rate of 14.50% per annum floating and the number of instalments were increased from 180 to 267.

4.      The Opposite Parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was denied that the rate of interest agreed was 11% per annum, rather, the rate of interest was 13.25% per annum plus 0.75% with variance, that is, total 14% per annum.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

6.      It is not disputed that the complainants had obtained loan of Rs.14.00 lacs from opposite parties/respondents. The dispute is only with respect to the rate of interest. The ‘Statement of Account’ Exhibit C-24 to C-27, C-31, C-32, C-35 clearly depict the rate of interest charged at different times. The complainants only dispute the charging of floating rate of interest stating that they were assured that fixed rate of interest would be charged.

7.      Once the complainants have signed the documents which clearly show that rate of interest to be charged was floating, it was not open to the complainants to say that they had signed blank loan documents and thus whatever was mentioned therein, was not binding upon them.

8.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5928 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1501/2015, ICICI Bank Limited vs. Maharaj Krishan Datta and others, held as under:-

“8.     He also pointed out that the National Commission has only discussed about one Clause of the Loan Agreement while deciding the matter and has interpreted it in isolation and without taking into account other terms of the contract. It is settled law that a contract has to be read as a whole and the terms of the contract cannot be read or construed in isolation. He also submitted that the Bank has to follow the RBI guidelines especially Schedules A and B thereto, and the Bank must be given liberty to act in the matter in accordance with the guidelines so issued by the RBI from time to time. Fixed rate, floating rate and other rates which have been mentioned in the guidelines and the right which has been given to the Banks in respect of Floating Reference Rate (FRR) has also to be followed in all cases by the Bank.”

9.      Since the complainants agreed to pay floating rate of interest by executing agreement Exhibit R-2, now they cannot back out from the same taking plea that they had signed the agreement on blank papers.  Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

10.    In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Announced 06.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL