DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.751/2008

Sh. Navin Thakkar

L-374, Sarita Vihar

New Delhi                                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

ICICI Bank

Near Uphar Cinema,

Green Park, New Delhi                                                         ….Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution        : 14.11.08         Date of Order                 :    25.07.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

complainant’s main prayer is to direct the OP to give written unconditional apology to the complainant for its act and to refund Rs.13694.47p towards prepayment penalty, Rs.200/- towards fee charged for statement and also to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation  for damages, defamation, mental agony and tension due to illegal act and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is submitted that the complainant’s wife as applicant No.1 and the complainant as applicant No.2 applied for a loan of Rs.7 lacs and the same was sanctioned and disbursed by the OP on 21.10.04 at the rate of 6.99% per annum, flouting with monthly rests. The loan was repayable in monthly installments of Rs.7199/- and they had been paying the installments without any default through his wife’s account. The OP increased the rate of interest from 6.99% to 12.75% and, hence, the complainant had no other alternative but to approach other banks who were offering housing loan at much lesser rate.  The complainant approached Bank of Maharashtra, C.P. Branch to take over his housing loan which was sanctioned by the Bank of Maharashtra. The Bank of Maharashtra was authorized through authority letter for the purpose of taking over the housing loan.  On 29.07.2008 the representative of Bank of Maharashtra approached the OP alongwith authority letter  to enquire about the amount payable for the purpose of taking over the loan but the officer dealing at the counter as well as the Branch Manager bluntly replied that they do not recognize any other banks and refused to inform the balance. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP and requested them to inform the amount payable on which they demanded Rs.100/- to give account statement and again demanded Rs.100/- for giving bank statement. The same was supplied by the OP on payment of Rs.200/-.  The OP also demanded pre-payment  penalty of Rs.13694.47p. It is submitted that instead of accepting the pay order towards payment of loan account the Branch Manager of the OP not only refused to accept the pay order but also threatened him.  Hence, this complaint with the above stated prayers.

OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant had availed home loan No.LBDEL00000900557 from the OP and the complainant had to pay Rs.7199/- as EMI towards the principal amount of Rs.7 lacs. The complainant approached the OP on 30.07.08 to transfer the balance payment to some other bank. The OP received the payment of Rs.577092/- towards the balance payment on the loan account of the complainant and foreclosed the loan from their side. As such the complainant has failed to show as to how the OP was deficient in rendering services. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.13694.47 was charged towards the termination charges of the loan account which was calculated at 2.25% of the principal amount as per the loan agreement between the parties. Therefore, by charging the termination charges, the OP did not violate any of the terms and conditions of the Agreement.  It is stated as under:-

“7…..since the Complainant had visited the branch and had asked for the balance payment in Loan A/c as well as the statement, the same was given at a pre-notified cost of Rs.100/- each. While it is admitted that to know the account balance is the right of account holder, it is also true that charging for a service being provided does not mean that the O.P. does not recognize such rights of its customers.”

OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed a rejoinder.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh.  Sanju Kumar, Manager, Legal has been filed  in evidence on behalf of the OP.  

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

 We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file carefully.

The OP has filed terms and conditions signed between the parties (Ex. RW1/1). Clause 11 of the same inter-alia contains a provision for pre-payment charges. Therefore, recovery of pre-payment charges by the OP bank from the complainant was justified. It is a matter of common knowledge that now banks have stopped providing free services to their customers and they charge service charges for almost each and every service given by them to their customers. Hence, charging of Rs.200/- as service charges by the OP bank from the complainant was not unjustified.  No case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP is made out.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it 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.

Announced on   25.07.17.