Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/312/2020

Shuchi Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Kuthiala

17 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/312/2020
Date of Institution	:	25/08/2020
Date of Decision	:	17/08/2023

 

Shuchi Gupta W/o Ashish Mohan Gupta, aged about 47 years, R/o House No.161, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. ICICI Bank Ltd., Home Loan, SCO No.3, Sector 11, Panchkula India, through its Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Home Loan, SCO No.1 to 3, Sector 9, Chandigarh India through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Vikas Kuthiala, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Kartik, Vice Counsel for Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant availed the office premises loan from the OPs. After understanding the terms and conditions, the complainant agreed to obtain loan from the OPs and the complainant regularly paid the installments in good faith as due and payable by her to the OPs. It is also submitted that floating rate of interest means that the rate of interest on the loan has to change every time the repo rate is changed by the RBI. OPs were not changing the floating rate of interest every time the repo rate or the rate of interest charged is changed by the RBI on the said loan account of the complainant. As per the statement, (Annexure C-3), the complainant has already paid cleared the major portion of loan amount of Rs.50,00,000/- alongwith interest on and upto October 2017 instead on July 2021, almost 4 years in advance as per the OP’s did not revise the rate of interest in terms of the letter dated 31.7.2006 (Annexure C-1). The complainant approached the OPs for the settlement of the balance loan amount after making the adjustment of the loan already paid by the complainant in accordance with the floating rate of interest applicable on the relevant date loan has been paid and cleared of as per the complainant. Thereafter, the OP bank sent a demand legal notice dated 7.12.2017. The complainant duly sent a reply dated 16.02.2018 to the demand notice. The OPs failed to charge the correct and agreed floating rate of interest on the loan of the complainant and further despite the fact that the complainant has cleared the said loan in October 2017, the OPs neither issued the NOC and paper of her collateral property to the complainant. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant is a defaulter, the installments are due since 10.11.2017 and the present complaint is only filed to avoid clearing its dues. It is also submitted that a person who is a defaulter is not entitled to any benefit. The amount due to the bank is Rs.64,61,312.80/-. It is also submitted that the loan was availed in 2006, interest change has taken place 29 times prior to 2019. The loan was availed in 2006, the complainant has admittedly been aware starting from 2006 that the loan interest has changed and has admittedly paid the EMIs in accordance with the new rate of interest.  The present complaint filed in 2021 is barred by limitation. Whenever there is an increase in rate of interest, the bank may increase tenure of the loan, subject to permissible limits, in order to avoid burdening the customer with higher EMI the same has been mentioned in the loan agreement duly signed by customer at the time of disbursement. The complainant admitted that the loan was taken on floating rate of interest as mentioned in the para 2(V) Type of interest is floating rate of interest. It is further submitted that, if the loan is provided on floating rate of interest, then the rate of interest may change from time to time.  It is also submitted that the complainant did not pay the installments regularly and are due to the OPs bank since 10.10.2017 as admitted by the complainant as per Annexure C-30. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that the complainant has alleged following misappropriations in the statement of accounts:- 

1. Though the rate of interest was increased every time the Repo rate was increased by the Reserve Bank of India, however, similarly the rate of interest which had to be decreased every time the Repo rate was increased by percentage point as increased by RBI but was never decreased as per the percentage point decreased by RBI resulting in excess interest being charged.
2. The Complainant was forced to pay the installments of Rs. 56,048-00 p.m.to the OPS, despite being offered the Loan on the floating rate of interest.

7.       On perusal of documents, it is observed that the cause of action is being set up by the complainant pertains to loan agreement signed in the year 2006 and hence, to our mind is barred by limitation. The loan was availed in 2006, Interest change has taken place many a times prior to 2019. The dispute is raised after 14 years which is well beyond the limitation. The loan was availed in the year 2006, and the complainant was aware starting from 2006, the loan interest has changed and has paid the EMIs in accordance with the new rate of interest. Hence, we are of the view that the present complaint filed in 2020 is barred by limitation. Before it was stabilized at Rs.60,505/- in 2011 after which it has continued at Rs.60,505/-. The change in EMIs is on many occasions prior to 2011 and hence the complainant was well aware of the same and cannot agitate the same in 2020. In Khatri Hotels Pvt Ltd And another vs Union Of India, (2011)9 SCC 126, Apex Court has held that if a suit is based on legal cause of action the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues and that successive violation of the right will not give rise to a fresh cause of action and the suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued.

8.      It is observed that the complainant had approached ICICI Bank for Non-Residential Property Loan and after considering his request and assessing eligibility, OP’s had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.50,00,000.00 vide Loan Account No.LBCHD00001379208 in July 2006 with Floating Rate of Interest (FRR 10.25% Margin 0.50%) = 10.75% p.a which was repayable in 180 Months. On perusal of the sanction letter and loan agreement signed and accepted by the complainant the time of disbursement, the rate of interest type opted is "Floating Rate of Interest". It is observed that floating interest rate applicable to loan account is subject to changes. It is also observed that the borrowers of such floating rate loans have a rate which gets reviewed from time to time throughout the tenure of the loan. Benchmark Floating Reference Rate ("FRR") which is used to determine the rate of interest for floating rate loans is linked to ICICI Bank's cost of funds and appropriate cost of operations for the relevant period, credit charge and margin. As cost of funds is one of the components of FRR, any change in cost of funds would therefore impact all customers whose loans are linked to FRR. It is also observed that there are many other factors including the CRR, RBI guidelines, international conditions etc. which may also change the floating rate of interest. Hence, we are of the view that there was no excess interest charged on the loan. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complaint is time barred and also the complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.   

9.       Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

10.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
17/08/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member