DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 115 of 20.3.2019

                                      Decided on:                    23.1.2023

Balwinder Singh age 60 son of late Sucha Singh, resident of House No.24, Street No.20-C,  Opposite S.I.D. PUB School, Anand Nagar-B, H-Block, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. ICICI Bank Ltd.,SCO 28-29, Near Leela Bhawan, Patiala, 147001.
2. ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., ICICI Bank Tower Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051.India.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Hob’ble Mr. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hob’ble Mr. G.S.Nagi,Member        

PRESENT                     Sh.S.J.S.Nahar,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.R.K.Pandey, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

1. The instant complaint is filed by Balwinder Singh s/o Late Sucha Singh        (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against ICICI Bank Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That the complainant applied for construction loan of Rs.3,00,000/- with the OPs vide loan application No.7771907654 (agreement No.LBPAT0000019973), which was sanctioned by OP No.2 and the OPs disbursed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.11.2003 and 31.12.2003, for the period of 15 years to be repayable @9.75% interest in 180EMIs, out of which 39 EMIs were of Rs.2782/- per month, thereafter EMIwas of Rs.3421/- per month, till 148 installments and the amount of remaining EMIs was Rs.5000/- per month till 181installments.Complainant regularly paid the installments for the period from 2.2.2004 to 1.2.2019 and thereafter requested the OPs to handover the clearance certificate but in the month of February,2019, OP No.1 refused to hand over the clearance certificate on the ground that the complainant is defaulter in making the payment of installments and have also listed his name in the list of defaulters. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed the written statement having raised certain preliminary objections.
4. On merits, it is admitted to be correct that the complainant alongwith co-applicant availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/-, in November,2003 with adjustable/floating rate of interest @9.75% per annum(initially @ 7.5% per annum with margin 2.25%) to be repayable in 180 months. It is denied that the complainant was regular in paying the installments and as per statement of account dated 11.7.2019, an amount of Rs.35,043/- is outstanding on account of defaulted installments and Rs.1,14,773/- is recoverable in future 23 installments. Furthermore, complainant was informed every time as and when any change has been made in her loan interest and tenure vide letters dated 1.7.2015, 12.1.2016, 15.10.2016, 11.2.2017, 9.5.2017, 11.9.2017, 11.12.2017,7.4.2018,11.9.2018 and 12.12.2018.Present loan tenure is 209 months and present loan installment is Rs.5000/-per month. As such, OPs have not indulged in any malpractice or unfair trade practice. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove the case, ld.counsel for the complainant has furnished affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA, copy of sanction letter,Ex.C1, copy of account statement (30 pages) Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence,Ex.OPA affidavit of Arshdeep Kumar, Ex.OP1 copy of loan application form, Ex.OP2 copy of loan agreement, Ex.OP3 copy of repayment schedule,Ex.OP4 copy of loan account statement,Ex.OP5 copy of letter regarding revision in rate of interest and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. Admittedly, complainant was sanctioned loan of  Rs.3,00,000/-vide letter,Ex.C1 against application No.7771907654 for which he entered into an agreement with the OP vide Ex.OP2 and the loan application, Ex.OP1 was submitted by the complainant. Loan was sanctioned at Prime Landing Rate of 9.75% with a rebate of 2.25% and as such the effective rate of interest was 7.5% per annum, as per the said agreement. The loan was to be repaid in 180 EMIs of varying amount .As per the sanction letter Ex.C1 and Loan agreement,Ex.OP2, the PLR at the time of sanctioning of loan was 9.75% and thus PLR was fixed as per the guidelines of RBI and is highlighted publically by the RBI through the print and electronic media, whenever there is change in the PLR.
9. Further as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the loan was sanctioned with the variable rate of interest , which was to be reset quarterly, based on the prevailing ICICI Home PLR and borrower shall pay interest as per reset rate as may be notified by the ICICI to the borrower.
10. The complainant has alleged that he had been paying his installments regularly from 2.2.2004 to 1.2.2019. However, the OPs failed to close his loan account and return the documents of the property, which were mortgaged with the OPs. The OPs has alleged that  the complainant was not regular towards his EMIs and an amount of Rs.35043/- was outstanding on 11.7.2019 against the complainant on account of default in payments and a total sum of Rs.1,14,773/- was due on 11.7.2019, which is evident from the loan account statement,Ex.C2.As per this statement, the cheques of the complainant were bounced and cheque bounced charges have been added from time to time.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 27.8.2019  passed in the case titled as ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Karam Chand and another by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein it has been held that,  in case there was change in the floating rate of interest on loans, the OPs were bound to inform/take the consent of the borrower before effecting any change in the rate of interest, so that the borrower can either continue with the enhanced rate of interest or opt for shifting of the loan to some other financial institution. 
12. This argument of the complainant was rebutted by the Ld. counsel for the OPs and he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case titled as Syndicate Bank Vs. R.Veeranna, Civil Appeal No.972 of 1995, decided on 19.12.2002, wherein it has been held that  when the rate of interest is enhanced interms of agreement between the parties,  the principles of natural justice are not attached. Enhancement cannot be invalidated on the grounds of wants of notice. In another case titled as Canara Bank Vs. V.G.Biju, Revision Petition No.970 of 2011, passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it has been held that the bank had not committed any deficiency in service in its services by charging rate of interest @9% against the minimum agreed rate of 7.5% per annum and which was subject to the change/increase depending upon the increase in the Prime Landing Rate(PLR). Counsel for the OPs has also placed reliance upon judgment dated 23.11.2022, passed in First Appeal No.454 of 2021, titled as ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Vishnu Bansal, by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi , wherein  it has been held that , in so far as taking consent of the complainant is concerned, we are of the considered view that the bank  was well within its rights to increase or decrease the rate of interest under the floating rate of interest provided for in the loan agreement executed between the bank and the complainant and any additional or further consent from the complainant was not required, the same having been agreed to in the loan agreement itself. There is nothing on record to show that either the bank had fixed the rates of interest in any erroneous way contrary to the principles and the guidelines applicable or had differentiated between similarly situate borrowers in this respect”

Even otherwise also the information regarding the change in rate of interest had been periodically given to the complainant vide letters from 12.1.2016 to 12.12.2018,Ex.OP5(10 Nos.) .

13. Even the complainant was not regular in payment of EMIs and cheques issued by the complainant for the same have bounced from time to time and Rs.35043/- was due from the complainant for to the same.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that bank was well within its rights to change the rate of interests applicable to the complainant from time to time with change in PLR subject to rebate of 2.25% in the PLR as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The OPs are therefore, directed to revise the loan statement of the complainant .The OPs are further directed to accept the balance amount if any in EMIs which are acceptable to the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
15. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
16. This order will also dispose of the complaint No.114 of 20.3.2019, filed by the same complainant, on the same issue, pertaining to the same property. Certified copy of the aforesaid order be placed in the said complaint file also.
17. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President