Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/450/2022

Bindu Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Inderjit Singh

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/450/2022
Date of Institution	:	21/04/2022
Date of Decision	:	01/08/2023

 

Bindu Goel w/o Yogesh Kumar Goel, resident of House No.3406, Sector-47, Chandigarh 160047.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No.SCO-82, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh 160047 through its Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Plot No.143A, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002, through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

3. RBI, Department of Banking Supervision, RBI Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh

… Proforma OP

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Inderjit Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ammish Goel, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OP-3 ex-parte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Bindu Goel, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that in the month of October, 2020, complainant had availed gold loan of ₹2,15,336/- against certain gold securities (jewellery) vide loan account No.108405001195 from OP-1 and at the time of processing the loan, it was intimated to the complainant by the officials of OP-1 that the loan can be closed at any time by repaying the loan amount.  It was also informed to the complainant that on the repayment of the loan amount, the gold securities (jewellery) will be released to her. The complainant had repaid the partial amount on 2.6.2021 and the balance amount of ₹1,94,247/- was renewed against aforesaid loan account.  The complainant kept on repaying the loan as per the payment plan and in the month of September 2021, she approached OP-1 for closure of the loan account.  At that time, OP-1 confirmed the balance amount of ₹1,95,000/- and accordingly the same was deposited by the complainant on 15.9.2021. It was confirmed by OP-1 that the requisite NOC/NDC with the gold securities will be issued to the complainant within a week. However, even after one week, again when the complainant approached the OPs 1 & 2 to enquire about the status of gold securities, it was informed to her that an amount of ₹7,400/- is short for closure of the loan liability and the same was required to be deposited by her. Having been left with no alternative, complainant was compelled to deposit the aforesaid amount of ₹7,400/- with OP-1 on 23.9.2021 and in this manner total amount of ₹2,02,400/- stood deposited by the complainant towards the closure of entire loan liability. Despite of the fact that the OPs had wrongly charged an amount of ₹7,400/- from the complainant, OPs 1 & 2 had not released the gold securities to the complainant, as a result of which she could not attend certain marriage functions.  Thereafter the complainant had issued legal notice to OPs 1 & 2, but, they did not care to reply the same.  In this manner, the aforesaid acts of OPs 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. OPs 1 & 2 were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs 1 & 2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and concealment of facts.  It is further admitted that the aforesaid loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by the answering OP and it was agreed upon by the complainant that in case the loan amount is repaid by the complainant within five months, in that event 1% of the facility amount was to be charged from her on account of prepayment charges and the said clause in the loan agreement was duly acknowledged by the complainant. It is further alleged that on 2.6.2021, complainant again approached OP-1 for renewal of the said loan facility and accordingly an amount of ₹1,94,247/- was sanctioned.  It is further alleged that in fact an amount of ₹7,400/- was demanded from the complainant on account of prepayment charges as per the terms and conditions of the renewal cum amendment letter dated 2.6.2021 (Annexure C-2) for which the complainant had flatly refused to pay the same. Even after that, OP-1 had offered partial foreclosure charges waiver, but, instead of accepting the offer given by the answering OPs, complainant has filed a false consumer complaint against the answering OPs in order to harass them. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP-3 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 2.2.2023.
4. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that vide sanction letter dated 28.10.2020 (Ex.C-1), OPs 1 & 2 had sanctioned gold and gold ornaments loan in favour of the complainant to the tune of ₹2,15,336/- for six months to be repayable by 28.4.2021 and after making part payment of the loan amount, the subject loan was further renewed vide renewal cum amendment letter dated 2.6.2021 (Ex.C-2) by providing facility amount of ₹1,94,247/-, repayable by 2.12.2021, and the complainant had paid the entire loan amount on 15.9.2021 i.e. before the limit expiry date, as is also evident from the copy of statement of account (Ex.C-3), and further the contesting OPs had asked the complainant to pay an amount of ₹7,400/- after the full payment of the loan amount, which was also paid by the complainant on 23.9.2021, and till date the gold ornaments, having been pledged by the complainant with the OPs against the said loan, had not been returned to the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OPs 1 & 2 have charged excessive amount of ₹7,400/- from the complainant and the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OPs 1 & 2 had rightly charged the aforesaid amount of ₹7,400/- from complainant and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OPs 1 & 2.
   2. Perusal of Ex.C-1 clearly indicates that if the facility/loan amount is pre-paid within five months i.e. before the tenure of the facility of six months, the loanee has to repay charges @ 1% of the facility amount.  Though in Ex.C-2 reference of repayment fee has been given against head A as “% of facility amount, if account is closed before 1 month of maturity date”, but, it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of arguments before this Commission that the complainant had agreed to pay prepayment charges through Ex.C-1 @ 1% of the facility amount. It is further clear that after renewal of loan account, on the renewal cum amendment letter (Ex.C-2), complainant had agreed to repay 1% charges on the facility amount in case of foreclosure of the account before the expiration of the tenure of the facility.  Perusal of Ex.C-3 further indicates that OPs 1 & 2 had accepted an amount of ₹7,400/- from the complainant.  It is also evident from Ex.C-3 that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹1,95,000/- on 15.9.2021 which was admittedly the entire balance loan amount. 
   3. At the time of arguments, it has been contended on behalf of OPs 1 & 2 that in fact OP-1 had approached the complainant as a service gesture and had offered partial foreclosure charges waiver, but, the complainant had intentionally and deliberately denied the said offer. However, there is no force in the contention of the OPs as it stands proved on record that the complainant had brought all these facts qua the overcharging of ₹7,400/- from her by OPs 1 & 2 through legal notice (Ex.C-4), but, despite of that OPs 1 & 2 have not admitted their fault while calculating the 1% amount on the facility amount.
   4. It has been further contended on behalf of the complainant that even if 1% prepayment fee/charges be calculated on the facility amount, same has to be calculated on the basis of renewal cum amendment letter (Ex.C-2) through which the original loan was renewed on 2.6.2021 and the same comes to ₹1,950/- only, even if it is calculated on the facility amount being rounded off to ₹1,95,000/-, and the OPs have no right to charge anything above that from the complainant.
   5. It is further clear from the written version filed by OPs 1 & 2 that instead of admitting their fault that they had wrongly calculated/charged an amount of ₹7,400/- from the complainant, which otherwise comes to ₹1,950/- only on the facility amount being 1% of the prepayment charges, no explanation has been given by OPs 1 & 2 how they calculated the amount of ₹7,400/- on the facility amount and what formula they had applied for calculation of the said amount, which cannot be more than ₹1,950/-, and also even after accepting the aforesaid amount, the gold ornaments have not been returned to the complainant till date, it is safe to hold that the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1 & 2  and the present consumer complain deserves to succeed.
   6. Now coming to the quantum of relief to be awarded to the complainant, since OPs 1 & 2, had wrongly charged an amount of ₹7,400/- from the complainant against ₹1,950/-, they are required to refund the differential amount i.e. ₹7,400 – ₹1,950 = ₹5,450/- alongwith interest and compensation etc. for the harassment suffered by her, besides returning the pledged gold ornaments.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed against OPs 1 & 2 and they are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹5,450/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 23.9.2021 (i.e. the date of payment of ₹7,400/- by the complainant), till realization of the same and OPs 1 & 2 are also directed to return the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant;
2. to pay an amount of ₹8,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been alleged or proved against OP-3, therefore, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order to costs.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/08/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member