1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above against the order dated 31.01.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 391 of 2013 in which order dated 26.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Forum-III-Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 963 of 2008 was challenged, inter alia praying for return of excess amount charged by the respondent.

2.       Brief notes of arguments filed by the respondent is taken on record. Heard counsel for the respondent and Petitioner who appeared in person. 

3.       No doubt, in the present case, the Petitioner has signed the loan related documents of the respondent under which a loan of Rs.30,467/- was sanctioned, against which, an amount of Rs.28,316/- was disbursed.  The said loan was to be paid in 36 EMIs of Rs.1649/-, which comes to Rs.59,364/-.  The documents relating to loan disbursement etc. placed on record by the respondent states that rate of interest is 49.15%.  In the State Commission’s order, rate of interest is mentioned as 49.18% p.a.  Counsel for the Respondent admits during the hearing that for the said loan, they have charged interest @ 49.18% and that the Petitioner has paid all the 36 EMIs totaling to Rs.59,364/- and nothing more is due from  his now.  The respondent contends that Petitioner himself has agreed to pay 49.18% p.a rate of interest at the time of availing micro-banking loan, rate of interest was specified in the loan agreement and Petitioner has signed the same.  Respondent contends that as per RBI guidelines dated 01.07.2010, they are free to determine the rate of interest on Advances.  Petitioner on the other hand contended that at the time of taking loan, he was orally told that interest rate will be 12 to 13%, but they charged 49.18%.  The Petitioner further contended that rate of interest @ 49.18% charged is exorbitant and exploitative for such category of small loan and he has been exploited by the Bank.  Hence, he seeks charging of reasonable rate of interest and refund of excess amount charged.

4.       State Commission, taking note of the facts that Petitioner herein has agreed to take loan @ 49.18%, is obligated to repay on this rate, dismissed his Appeal.

5.       Respondent herein i.e. ICICI Bank is a Scheduled Commercial Bank governed by RBI guidelines and we are of the considered view that they cannot charge such exorbitant rates for such small loans. The Petitioner cannot be bound by such unilaterally determined loan agreement which the Petitioner has been made to sign.  The Banks like the respondent herein need to charge a reasonable rate of interest on such loans keeping in view the prevailing market rate of other Banks during the period in question.  They cannot exploit their customers by charging highly excessive and exploitative rate of interest.  It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghvan  (2019) 5 SCC 725, which was in the context of a builder-buyer agreement, that “a term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder ......... the incorporation of one sided clause in an agreement constitute an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling flats by the builder ........., the appellant-builder cannot seek to bind the respondent with such one sided contractual terms.” Applying the broad principle stated in the judgment, we are of the considered view that Petitioner herein cannot be bound by unilaterally determined terms and conditions with respect to such exorbitant rate of interest, even if he has signed such loan agreement.  We hereby direct the respondent to charge interest @ 12% p.a. only, and accordingly rework out the amount payable by the Petitioner herein keeping in view the date of disbursement and dates of repayment of various instalments and refund the amount charged in excess with interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from the dates of receipt of such excess amount, till the date of actual payment, within 30 days from today.

6.       Accordingly, Revision Petition is allowed with above directions  alongwith cost of Rs.10,000/-, to be paid by the respondent herein to the Petitioner herein.  If the Respondent fails to refund the excess amount charged alongwith litigation cost within 30 days from today, the total amount due at the end of 30 days will carry interest @ 15% p.a.

7.       Pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.