DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.880/2009

1.       Sh. Jasvinder Pal Singh

2.       Mrs. Sukhjit Walia

          Both  R/o

          59, PKT A-8,

          Kalkaji Extn, New Delhi                             ….Complainants

Versus

ICICI Bank

through its Principal Manager

Green Park Branch

New Delhi                                                             ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 15.12.09                                                             Date of Order        :  28.05.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member

O R D E R

Briefly stated, the case of the Complainants is that they had taken a home loan from the OP for a sum of Rs.78,56,250/- vide application No.7776635500 and account No. LBDEL-0001462497 on 21.12.06 and the loan has already been paid back to the OP. At the time of execution of the agreement, the OP apprised them about the insurance scheme. The OP had deducted a sum of Rs.3,56,250/- from the total loan of Rs.78,56,250/- towards the insurance of the property for which the loan was sanctioned. They came to know that the OP had not taken any insurance policy from Lombard Insurance Company. However, the OP adjusted the sum of Rs.3,56,250/- towards the repayment of the loan sanctioned by it but did not reimburse the interest. The interest was charged by OP at the rate of 13.5% w.e.f. 21.12.06 when the loan was sanctioned till 10.04.08 when the loan was settled as paid with the adjustment of Rs.356250/. They approached the OP and also sent the written communication regarding payment of the interest but the OP has not given any response to their request. Then they sent a notice on 09.06.09 to pay the interest amounting to Rs. 62,787/- and also a sum of Rs.5500/- as cost of notice within fortnight but OP willfully neglected and refused to pay  Rs.62,787/- as interest.  Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complaint has been filed with the following prayers:-

1. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.68287/- (sic)  towards the reimbursement of the interest @ 13.5% w.e.f. 21.12.06 to 10.04.08 and Rs.5500/- as cost of notice.
2. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs as compensation for causing harassment, pain and agony to the Complainants.
3. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation. 

          OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.10.10 passed by our predecessors.

          Complainant No. 1 has filed his affidavit in exparte evidence and written arguments.

        We have heard the arguments on behalf  of the Complainants and have also gone through the file very carefully.

        Documents have not been marked exhibit numbers as per the exhibit numbers marked in the affidavit of Complainant No. 1.

          Complainant has placed on record a copy of Facility Agreement executed between the parties (copy Annexure- A). The Complainant has placed on record a copy of letter dated 06.04.08 issued by the OP which shows that  revised terms and conditions of the loan agreement were executed between the parties (for the purpose of identification we mark the document as Annexure-B). In the said revised terms loan amount was reduced from Rs. 78,56,250/- to Rs. 73,49,724/- from 10.4.2008 after adjusting part payment of Rs. 3,50,250/- and the amount of each EMI was reduced from Rs. 97,106/- to 92,689/-. Therefore, it transpires that the OP had in fact charged the interest @ 13.5% on the amount of Rs. 73,49,724/- and not on the initial amount of Rs. 78,56,250/- from the complainants.  Therefore, there is no convincible evidence on the record to prove that the OP had also charged interest @ 13.5% on the amount of Rs. 3,50,250/- (as stated in the letter dated 6.4.2008) or Rs. 3,56,250/- (as per case of the complainant).

         In view of above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove  that OP committed any deficiency in service. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 (S. S. Fonia)                                                                           (Naina Bakshi)                                                                               (N. K. Goel)

   Member                                                                                           Member                                                                                    President

Announced on   28.05.16.

Case No. 880/09

28.5.2016

Present –   None

        Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.    Let the file be consigned to record room.

(S. S. Fonia)                                                                           (Naina Bakshi)                                                                               (N. K. Goel)

   Member                                                                                           Member                                                                                    President