DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/46/2019

Date of Institution : 03.05.2019

Date of Decision : 23.09.2019

Rakesh Kumar aged 39 years son of Baldev Krishan, House No. B-X/562, Patel Nagar, Ward No. 14, Barnala.                             …Complainant

Versus

1. ICICI Bank, SCO No. 6, 1st Floor, Above Bank of India, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala-147001 through its Managing Director/Authorized Person. 

2. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Pacca College Road Branch, Barnala. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.1986.

Present: Sh. Pankaj Bansal counsel for complainant.

Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3. Smt. Manisha : Member

(ORDER BY TEJINDER SINGH BHANGU MEMBER):

    The complainant namely Rakesh Kumar has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against ICICI Bank, Patiala and another.  (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that he had availed a home loan of Rs. 15,25,000/- from the opposite parties vide Account No. LBBNL00001648975. It is further submitted that as per terms and conditions rate of interest was floating i.e liable to be increased or decreased as per policy of the Reserve Bank of India. At the time of availing the loan the rate of interest was 13,25% per annum and term months were 144. Easy monthly installment was to be calculated over monthly rest. The Pre EMI for October was Rs. 6,090/- and for the next month was Rs. 4,983/- and from December 2017 it was Rs. 21,200/-.  

3. It is further alleged that opposite parties sent a letter dated 1.5.2009 to the complainant and revised the said loan tenure from 144 months to 137 months so the complainant paid all the 137 installments of Rs. 21,200/- each without any delay. But the opposite parties overcharged interest and debited illegal charges and kept the amount increasing. Now the opposite parties stated that the complainant was liable to pay 158 installments. The opposite parties never informed the complainant nor sent any letter to him in this regard. However, as per above mentioned 137 installments nothing is due from the complainant but opposite parties demanding Rs. 4,41,386/- from the complainant which is against law and facts. The complainant availed the loan in the year 2007 at the rate of 13.25% and after that rate of interest was regularly reduced but even then the opposite parties demanded this amount from the complainant. The complainant visited the opposite party No. 2 many times and requested to release No Due Certificate but they refuse to do so which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to issue Account Liquidation Certificate/No Due Certificate to the complainant and not to demand the above said illegal amount.  

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment.           

3) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief this Forum deems fit. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of not paid the requisite fee and no deficiency of service. Further, complainant and his parents obtained non-residential property loan upon their shop No. 11, Prem Parshad Market, New Bus Stand Extension, Barnala for commercial use, so complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act. Further, this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint as loan was obtained from ICICI Bank Patiala and agreement of loan was also signed at Patiala. Further, the complainant has  no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. Further, complaint is time barred as loan was availed in 2007 and now after lapse of 12 years the complainant is raising the dispute about the rate of interest and installment.

5. On merits, the opposite parties submitted that in October 2007 complainant and his parents requested for the grant of non-residential loan and submitted application form No. 777-7338783 duly signed by the borrower. On this ICICI Bank sanctioned loan of Rs. 15,25,000/- with floating rate of interest i.e. 13.25% which was repayable in 155 months of Rs. 21,200/- each subject to variation of interest as per terms and conditions of agreement. It is denied that opposite parties overcharged interest and debited illegal charges in the account of the complainant. The borrower accepted the rate of interest as Floating which is subject to changes which gets reviewed from time to time throughout the tenure of loan. Whenever there is increase in rate of interest the opposite party increase tenure of loan in order to avoid burdening the customer with higher EMI which is duly mentioned in the loan agreement which is also intimated to the customer at his address. As per revised RBI Rules customer is option of migrating to benchmark marginal cost of fund based lending rate which is available for existing customers. The borrower can opt for MCLR 1 Y or MCLR 6M where the reset of benchmark will be at the interval of 1 year and 6 months respectively. Borrower is having option to re-price his loan account to new Benchmark and margin. For the same he would be required to visit an asset serving branch and execute a conversion agreement and pay the applicable conversion fee plus service tax on principal outstanding. The changed rate would apply upon execution of the conversion agreement and payment of fee. In this case borrower had opted for a conversion of his loan account by signing the request letter for conversion of existing interest rate on September 2017 vide SR491002697 and accordingly conversion charges of Rs. 1,180/- was levied to his loan account. There are 18 future EMIs to be paid by the borrower and 137 EMIs has already been paid as on July 15 2019. The repayment schedule clearly shows that there was a increase and decrease of interest time to time. Rest of averments of the complaint are denied by the opposite parties. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and lastly they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of welcome letter Ex.C-2, copy of statement of account Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 1.5.2009 Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties  tendered into evidence affidavit of Sparsh Nagrik Branch Manager Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of loan account statement Ex.OP-1.2/2, copy of repayment schedule Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of facility agreement Ex.OP-1.2/4, copy of letter dated 9.5.2017 Ex.OP-1.2/5, copy of letter dated 12.5.2012 Ex.OP-1.2/6, copy of letter dated 12.9.2011 Ex.OP-1.2/7 and closed the evidence.   

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by the parties have also been gone through. 

9. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant has taken a loan of Rs. 15,25,000/- in the year 2007 from the opposite parties with floating rate of interest which was repayable in 144 installments of Rs. 21,200/- subject to variation of interest rate. It is also admitted between the parties that the opposite parties have not issued any No due Certificate to the complainant as they have claimed some outstanding amount against the complainant. The main grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that the opposite parties overcharged interest and debited illegal charges in the account of the complainant due to which they have made 158 installments of the loan taken by the complainant whereas he has already paid all the 137 installments as demanded by the opposite parties vide letter dated 1.5.2009, which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

10. Now the main question before us whether the opposite parties rightly demanded the 158 installments from the complainant on the basis of floating rate of interest or not ?

11. To prove that the opposite parties illegally demanded 158 installments from the complainant by overcharging interest and debiting illegal charges, the complainant relied upon copy of welcome letter Ex.C-2 in which it is clearly mentioned that date of disbursement of loan was October 20, 2017 and amount of loan is Rs. 15,25,000/-. Further, in this document the type of interest is mentioned as Floating and term/ installments are 144 of Rs. 21,200/- from the month of December 2007. Further in this document Ex.C-2 it is clearly mentioned that EMI was calculated on the rate of interest 13.25% with monthly rest. Further, the complainant has relied upon Loan Account statement as on 29th April 2019 in which the rate of interest is mentioned as 9.85% and it is also mentioned that 137 installments have already been paid by the complainant. However, it is also mentioned that 21 installments are still pending and outstanding amount on 29.4.2019 was Rs. 4,41,386/-. Further, the complainant relied upon Account statement from 1.12.2007 to 10.4.2019 in which the rate of interests are mentioned from 10.5.2013 was 13.75%, 1.7.2015 was 13.70%, 1.11.2015 was 13.35%, 1.10.2016 was 13.30%, 1.2.2017 was 13.25%, 1.5.2017 was 13.10%, 1.9.2017 was 13.00%, 2.9.2017 was 9.50% and 1.9.2018 was 9.85%. This document proved that rate of interest was fluctuated frequently and after 2.9.2017 it is reduced drastically on the loan amount of the complainant. The complainant also relied upon copy of letter dated 1.5.2009 which was issued by opposite parties to the complainant in which the opposite parties reduced the rate of interest from 13.75% to 13.25% and EMIs reduced from 144 to 137. 

12. On the other hand the opposite parties to rebut the stand of the complainant relied upon copy of loan account details as on 15.7.2019 Ex.OP-1.2/2 in which the opposite parties claimed 18 installments and outstanding is mentioned as Rs. 3,77,786/- with rate of interest 9.85%. At page No. 2 of this document they also relied upon change in floating rate of interest which is same as tendered by the complainant and detail of same is mentioned in the previous para of this order. In this way the opposite parties admitted this document and also admitted that rate of interest from 1.9.2018 till 15.7.2019 is 9.85%. They also filed repayment schedule Ex.OP-1.2/3 and copy of letter 9.5.2017 in which they have communicated the complainant about the reducing of rate of interest from 28.4.2017 as 0.15% per annum. They also filed copies of letters Ex.OP-1.2/6 and Ex.OP-1.2/7 to prove that they have informed the complainant about the change of rate of interest if any. But we observed that the opposite parties only filed three letters Ex.OP-1.2/5 to Ex.OP-1.2/7 regarding information to the complainant about change of rate of interest on the loan of the complainant. However, from Ex.C-3 and Ex.OP-1.2/2 it is proved on the file that the rate of interest has been changed at least nine times after 10.5.2013 but opposite parties only informed one time to the complainant during this period. But we observed that as per Banking Regulation Act, 1949 Sections 21 and 35A it is necessary to inform the borrower as and when there is any change in rate of interest. 

13. The most important documents in the present complaint are Ex.C-3 and Ex.OP-1.2/2 and in both these documents the opposite parties have given detail of change in rate of interest from 16.10.2007. From the perusal of this document in our view it is proved on the file that from 10.5.2013 to 1.2.2017 the rate of interest is slightly more than 13.25% which was initial rate of interest on which number of EMIs was fixed but after 1.2.2017 it is 13.25% or less than 13.25% and after 2.9.2017 it was drastically reduced to 9.50% and from 1.9.2018 it was 9.85%. Further, from Ex.OP-1.2/6 and Ex.OP-1.2/7 it is proved on the file that the opposite parties even charged rate of interest 16.25% per annum from the complainant which in our view is much higher side. Further, the opposite parties also not mentioned this very much higher rate of interest 14% or more than 14% in their account statement which is from 16th October 2007 to 15.7.2019. Further, the opposite parties not mentioned any rate of interest in the account statement issued to the complainant and tendered in evidence Ex.OP-1.2/2, so they have concealed the higher rate of interest charged, from the complainant and also from this Forum. In the repayment schedule Ex.OP-1.2/3 the opposite parties mentioned the rate of interest in which in many months the opposite parties charged rate of interest 14% or more than 14% but in the Account statement of complainant from 16th October 2007 to 15.7.2019 they never mentioned that the opposite parties have charged 14% interest or more than 14% interest on the loan amount, which proved that the opposite parties intentionally concealed the higher rate of interest from the complainant and even from this Forum, which is material fact to prove the stand taken by the opposite parties. 

14. It is proved from Ex.OP-1.2/3 that the complainant has been paid his all installments on time and even paid all the other charges as and when informed by the opposite parties to him. Even, the opposite parties has not taken any plea regarding non payment of any other charges by the complainant.

15. The opposite parties have taken a preliminary objection in their written version that the complainant and his parents obtained non-residential property loan which is for commercial use, but in the welcome letter issued by the opposite parties Ex.C-2 they themselves clearly mentioned that they have sanctioned a Home Loan to the complainant, so at this juncture they cannot have taken a plea that this is a commercial loan. Further, from the rate of interest we are of the view that it is a housing loan. 

16. From all the above mentioned facts and circumstances we are of the view that the opposite parties illegally demanded 158 installments from the complainant on the basis of higher floating rate of interest but concealed the higher rate of interest from the complainant and even this Forum, which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

17. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is allowed. As the complainant already paid all the installments which were demanded from him vide letter dated 1.5.2009 by the opposite parties, so he is not liable to pay any more amount to the opposite parties regarding the above mentioned loan.  Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed not to demand any amount from the complainant with regard to above mentioned loan and also directed to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant. Further, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite parties are also directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Forum. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

  23rd Day of September 2019

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

 

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member

 

(Manisha)

Member