Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the opposite party No. 1 is manager of the ICICI Bank and opposite party No. 2 is registered office of the ICICI Bank. The complainant has taken house loan from the ICICI Bank bearing loan account No. LBAMT00004130473 on 4.12.2017 for a sum of Rs. 15,15,214/- with rate of interest 7.25 variance of 0.85 for the tune of 185 monthly installments. The complainant had been paying the installments regularly but due to the out break on the Covid-19 the complainant was unable to pay the installments regularly to the bank. Thereafter, the complainant got the account statement on 29.10.2021 and came to know that the bank has been charging excess rate of interest on the loan amount as  per the bank statement for the June 2018 rate of interest is 9.20% for December 2018 rate of interest is 9.60% for June 2019 rate of interest is 9.55%, for December 2019 rate of interest is 9.05% for June 2020 rate of interest is 8.50% for December 2020 rate of interest is 8.15% and for June 2021 rate of interest is 8.10% which is much more than the agreed as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover over additional rate of interest at the rate of 24% is also mentioned in the statement which is also against the terms and conditions of the agreement and policies of the RBI. When the complainant contacted the Bank to resolve this issue they refused to entertain the claim of the complainant. The complainant visited the office of opposite party many times regarding his claim but the opposite party lingered on the matter on one false pretext or the other and threatened the complainant to take forcible possession of the property of the complainant. Again every time, the complainant visited the branch of the opposite party regarding his claim but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and this time they flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the following relieves may be granted in favour of complainant.

1. The opposite party No. 1 may kindly be directed to reimburse the excess amount rate of interest charged from the complainant.
2. The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000/-  as compensation for providing deficient services as well as Rs. 40,000/-      litigation expenses for causing harassment to the complainant in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of Loan account statement Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of affidavit in support of application under Section 38B CP Act C-3, Self attested copy of Adhar Card of complainant Ex. C-4.

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act and hence the present complaint is not maintainable. Even otherwise, the complainant is a borrower of the opposite party and has availed loan from the opposite party and as such, is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the complaint filed as such merits dismissal on this score alone. The opposite party has not committed any wrong as far as allegations made out by the complainant in the present complaint are concerned. The fact is that at the time of availing TOP UP LOAN facility from the opposite party, the complainant had opted “Floating rate of interest” option, according to which the rate of interest applicable from time to time is subject to changes. The changes in the rate of interest are quite transparent which are reviewed from time to time throughout the tenure of the loan. Whenever there is an increase in interest rate, the opposite party increases tenure of the loan to the borrows subject to permissible limits in order to avoid burdening the borrowers with higher EMI and same is mentioned in the loan agreement signed by the borrowers at the time of disbursement of loan. Intimation regarding change in ROI also sent to customer through Post. In case the borrowers wish to reduce the tenure they may opt to increase the amount of EMIs or make part prepayment or a combination of both. Under such circumstances even the opposite party had explained verbally too about the facts but instead of understanding the facts, he has filed the present complaint without any basis which is against the facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be dismissed. Till date ROI table is mentioned below

The rate of interest has been charged in terms of the agreed terms and conditions of loan documents executed by the complainant at the time of availing the loan and policies of RBI and the bank. Additional interest will be charged if customer makes default in payment. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version the opposite party has placed on record Photostat copy of account statement Ex. OP/1, copy of repayment schedule Ex. OP/2, letter dated 10.6.2021 Ex. OP/3, letter dated 10.12.2018 Ex. OP/4, Letter dated 10.12.2019 Ex. OP/5, Letter dated 12.6.2019 Ex. OP/6, Letter dated 11.6.2019 Ex. OP/7, Letter dated 10.11.2019 Ex. OP/8, Letter dated 10.6.2021 Ex. OP/9, Letter dated 9.12.2021 Ex. OP/10, Affidavit of Sh. Arshdeep Manager Ex. OP/A.

3        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.

4        Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has taken house loan from the ICICI Bank bearing loan account No. LBAMT00004130473 on 4.12.2017 for a sum of Rs. 15,15,214/- with rate of interest 7.25 variance of 0.85 for the tune of 185 monthly installments. The complainant had been paying the installments regularly but due to the outbreak on the Covid-19, the complainant was unable to pay the installments regularly to the bank. Thereafter, the complainant got the account statement on 29.10.2021 and came to know that the bank has been charging excess rate of interest on the loan amount. As  per the bank statement for the June 2018, rate of interest is 9.20% for December 2018 rate of interest is 9.60% for June 2019 rate of interest is 9.55%, for December 2019 rate of interest is 9.05% for June 2020 rate of interest is 8.50% for December 2020 rate of interest is 8.15% and for June 2021 rate of interest is 8.10% which is much more than the agreed as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover over additional rate of interest at the rate of 24% is also mentioned in the statement which is also against the terms and conditions of the agreement and policies of the RBI. He further contended that when the complainant contacted the Bank to resolve this issue they refused to entertain the claim of the complainant. The complainant visited the office of opposite party many times regarding his claim but the opposite party lingered on the matter on one false pretext or the other and threatened the complainant to take forcible possession of the property of the complainant. Again every time, the complainant visited the branch of the opposite party regarding his claim but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and this time they flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.

5        Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant is a borrower of the opposite party and has availed loan from the opposite party and as such, is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the complaint filed as such merits dismissal on this score alone. At the time of availing TOP UP LOAN facility from the opposite party, the complainant had opted “Floating rate of interest” option, according to which the rate of interest applicable from time to time is subject to changes. The changes in the rate of interest are quite transparent which are reviewed from time to time throughout the tenure of the loan. Whenever there is an increase in interest rate, the opposite party increases tenure of the loan to the borrows subject to permissible limits in order to avoid burdening the borrowers with higher EMI and same is mentioned in the loan agreement signed by the borrowers at the time of disbursement of loan. He further contended that intimation regarding change in ROI also sent to customer through Post. In case the borrowers wish to reduce the tenure they may opt to increase the amount of EMIs or make part prepayment or a combination of both. Even the opposite party had explained verbally too about the facts but instead of understanding the facts, he has filed the present complaint without any basis which is against the facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be dismissed. The rate of interest has been charged in terms of the agreed terms and conditions of loan documents executed by the complainant at the time of availing the loan and policies of RBI and the bank. He further contended that additional interest will be charged if customer makes default in payment and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.

6        We have gone through the rival contentions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.

7        In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant has availed house loan from the opposite party. According to the complainant, the opposite parties are charging excess rate of interest on the loan amount. But on the other hands, the stand of the opposite parties is that they are not charging excess rate of interest and are charging the interest as per agreement between the parties.  At the time of availing TOP UP LOAN facility from the opposite parties, the complainant had opted “FLOATING RATE OF INTEREST”  option, according to which the rate of interest is to be charged as applicable from time to time.  The opposite parties have also mentioned in detail in their written version that the interest is being charged as per agreement. The complainant has availed the loan from the opposite parties after admitting the terms and conditions and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  As per Ex. C-2 and Ex. OP1 it is mentioned that it is a TOP UP Loan and interest rate type is floating and as per Ex. OP-2 it is mentioned the tenure in months i.e. 187 and interest type is floating interest. As per Ex. OP-2, the opposite parties have placed on record the payment schedule on record and also mentioned the rate of interest which is increasing and decreasing as per the guidelines of RBI. The opposite parties have written various letters to the complainant regarding the revision in rate of interest in loan account. As per Ex. OP-3, Ex. OP-4, Ex. OP-5, Ex. OP-6, Ex. OP-7, Ex. OP-8, Ex. OP-9 and Ex. OP-10 which clearly prove the contention of opposite parties that they are charging floating rate of interest as agreed between the parties. If the complainant wants to reduce tenure, he may opt to increase the amount of E.M.Is or make part prepayment or combination of both. The rate of interest is charged by banks as per prevailing policies of RBI and the bank. Additional interest is only charged in case customer makes default in payment. Hence we are of the considered view that opposite parties are rightly charging the rate of interest on floating basis as per terms and conditions duly agreed between the parties. In support of this the Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has placed on record ‘2024(2) Civil Court Cases 310 (S.C) Supreme Court of India titled Rajesh Monga Vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited & Ors’ and held as follows:-

Home Loan-Interest rate-Dispute as to-terms and conditions of agreement- Agreement when executed and loan amount received appellant cannot raise any objection for the first time when rate of interest was increased after having acquiesced by signing the agreement-Appellant having repaid the loan amount with interest as per terms of agreement cannot make out a grievance in hindsight and seek refund of the amount paid- More so, contention of appellant that he had option of securing financial assistance from other institutions but was lured by respondent through email and therefore amounts to unfair trade practice causing loss to appellant, rejected, as no material on record to establish that he had in fact approached any other financial institution which had agreed to sanction loan or to demonstrate that it was a better bargain- complaint rightly dismissed.

In similar case titled ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Vishnu Bansal in first appeal No. 454 of 2021 the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has not found any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of bank. 

8        In this case also contract between the parties is based on terms and conditions of the agreement and must be followed in letter and spirit. Opposite parties are rightly claiming the interest from the complainant and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

9        In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.  Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

17.07.2024