STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Rantej Paul son of Sh.Nagin Chand, resident of H.No.34, Sector 8, Panchkula.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

ICICI Bank, SCO No.180-182, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager

              ....Respondent/Opposite Party

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. V.K. Diwan, Advocate for the appellant.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant availed of Home loan of Rs.85 lacs, from the Opposite Party, against the intended mortgage of the property, comprising House No.34, Sector 8, Panchkula, measuring 4500 sq. feet. The said loan was released, in his favour, on 31.12.2005. According to the complainant, his signatures were obtained on a blank document, described as an agreement, and the same was, later on, filled up, and, even tempered with, by the Opposite Party. It was stated that the loan was sanctioned, with interest @9.50% P.A., for a period of 10 years. It was further stated that equal monthly installments of Rs.1,09,988/-, were worked out, to be paid, for a period of 10 years (120 months). It was further stated that the loan was stipulated, to be repayable from 1.2.2006 to 1.2.2015. It was further stated that the complainant had been making payment of the equal monthly installments, at the aforesaid rate of interest w.e.f. 1.2.2006, without a single default. In the year 2010, the complainant arranged funds, and prepaid the entire loan amount, alongwith interest @ 9.50% P.A., duly computed and applied with monthly rests, on 6.1.2010. The entire liability, in respect of the aforesaid loan, stood fully and finally discharged, by the complainant. When the complainant requested the Opposite Party, to issue No Due Certificate, it gave evasive reply. The complainant sent emails and letters – Annexures C-2 to C-4 and C-5, respectively, but the same were not replied. It was further stated that the Officers of the Opposite Party, orally informed the complainant, that he was bound to pay higher rate of interest, than 9.50% P.A., as the latter had changed rate of interest, on variable basis, in respect of his loan. The complainant demanded a certified/attested copy of the loan agreement, vide email Annexure C-6, on 28.4.2010, but the Opposite Party, instead of acting fairly, in the matter, simply declined to supply the same, vide email dated 1.5.2010 Annexure C-7.

3.               The complainant, thereafter, sent registered letters to the Opposite Party, on 12.5.2010, 31.5.2010, 10.11.2010 and 9.3.2011, copies whereof are Annexures C-8 to C-11, respectively, but the Opposite Party did not give any reply to the same. It was further stated that as per the Reserve Bank of India Circular, Annexure C-12, all the banks are required to disclose to the borrower, all information about fees/charges payable for processing the loan application, the amount of fees refundable, if loan amount is not sanctioned/disbursed, pre-payment options and charges, if any, penalty for delayed repayments, if any, conversion charges etc., and, such information was also required to be displayed, on the website of the banks. It was further stated that the instructions, contained in the circular, were not followed by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, with great reluctance and delay, supplied the Statement of Account – Annexure C-13, according to which, it charged interest, at the rates, varying mostly from 10% P.A. to 15% P.A., during different periods, except 9.5% P.A., for initial three months only.

4.               It was further stated that the complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.1,11,96,239/-, against the loan of Rs.85 lacs, which was sanctioned, in his favour. It was further stated that, if the interest was calculated on monthly basis @9.5% P.A., then the liability of the complainant, worked out to be Rs.1,10,98,009/-, and, thus,  an amount of Rs.1,12,955/- stood paid, in excess, by the complainant, to the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

5.               The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that the complainant applied for home loan aforesaid, which was sanctioned, in his favour. It was also admitted that the same was disbursed, in favour of the complainant. It was denied that the signatures of the complainant, were obtained on blank document, described as an agreement, which was later on, filled up, by the Opposite Party. It was stated that such objection was raised by the complainant, for the first time, after 7 years. It was further stated that the loan was granted, in favour of the complainant, at floating rate of interest and not at fixed rate of interest. It was further stated that the equal monthly installments were likely to change, from time to time, depending on the applicable rate of interest. It was further stated that the complainant was duly explained the accounts and the rate of interest, as applicable, repeatedly. It was further stated that the complainant approached the bank, for settlement of his loan account, and considering his offer, a settlement was arrived at between the Parties, whereby it granted a benefit of Rs.5,67,090/- to him, by waiving off the same . It was further stated that the complainant closed the loan account, by paying an amount of Rs.11,45,671/-. It was further stated that the loan account had been closed and the complainant was required to withdraw the complaint, as a part of the settlement, arrived at, between the Parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was ready to hand over the property documents, in Court, on withdrawal of the present complaint. It was further stated that the FRR was liable to change, from time to time, and the applicable rate of interest, for each loan, also changed, from time to time. It was further stated that, in the summary Jurisdiction under the Act, the District Forum could not go beyond the agreement, and fix the applicable rates and interest. It was further stated that the dispute, between the Parties was, in the nature of a suit, for rendition of accounts, which was not covered under the purview of the Act. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the loan was granted, in favour of the complainant, on floating/adjustable rate of interest, which was bound to change, from time to time. It was further held, that after the amount of Rs.11,45,671/-, in full and final settlement was paid by the complainant, and credited to his account, as on 02.05.2012, the balance outstanding was shown as nil, against the complainant.

8.               Ultimately, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

9.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant

10.            We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

11.            It was submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the loan was granted, in favour of the appellant/complainant, at a fixed rate of interest and not at adjustable/floating rate of interest, and, as such, the Opposite Party could only charge the same. It was also submitted, by the Counsel for the appellant, that even no intimation, with regard to the change of rate of interest, from time to time, was given to the complainant, by the Opposite Party, and, as such, it (Opposite Party) could not charge the same, to the detriment of the complainant. Photocopy of the Home Equity Loan Agreement, is at pages 90 to 119 of the District Forum file. At page 111 of the same, there is Schedule 1. According to this Schedule, the loan was granted to the complainant, on adjustable interest rate, as per Schedule B. Schedule B is at page 107 of the District Forum file. According to Clause B (ii) of Schedule B “Until and as varied by ICICI Bank in terms of this Agreement, the Adjustable Interest Rate shall be the percentage of margin stated hereinbelow and the FRR,  plus applicable interest tax or other statutory levy, if any”.”. From this document, it is further evident, that the loan was not granted, in favour of the complainant, at the fixed rate of interest, but, as stated above, on the floating/adjustable interest rate. Under these circumstances, the interest was bound to change, from time to time, with change, in the market conditions. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect, that the loan was granted at fixed rate of interest of 9.50% P.A., therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

12.            The next question, that requires determination, is, as to whether, the Opposite Party was liable to intimate the complainant, from time to time, as and when, there was a change, in the rate of interest. Since the loan was granted to the complainant, at adjustable interest rate/floating interest rate, which was bound to change, from time to time, with change, in the market conditions, there was no obligation upon the Opposite Party, to give him (complainant), prior information, with regard to the same. The complainant must have been supplied statements of account, from time to time, and he could very well come to know therefrom, as to what was the rate of interest, that was being charged, from him, by the Opposite Party. Even, in paragraph number 6 on merits of the written statement, it was specifically stated by the Opposite Party that the complainant was duly explained the accounts and the rates of interest, as applicable. No rejoinder was filed by the complainant, to rebut this averment, in the written statement, which, thus, remained un-rebutted. It was, for the first time, that vide e-mail dated 18.01.2010 Annexure C-2, the complainant raised the grievance that the rate of interest charged by the bank was incorrect. In paragraph number 5 of the complaint, the complainant stated that when e-mail dated 01.04.2010 Annexure C-5, was sent by him, to the Opposite Party, its Officers explained to him that he was bound to pay interest at the higher rate, as the bank had charged interest at variable rates. Why the complainant slept over the alleged charging of interest, at a higher rate, from the date of advancement of loan onwards, is not known. It means, that he was duly made known, with regard to the variable rate of interest being charged, from time to time, on the loan advanced, in his favour. Even in Syndicate Bank Vs. R. Veeranna and Others, (2003) 2 SCC, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that if agreement makes express provision for enhancement of rate of interest, the bank was not liable to put the borrower, on notice, before charging higher rate, on the basis of the agreement. It was further held that the principles of natural justice could not be read into the express terms of the contract. It was further held that the circulars/instructions, issued by the Head Office of the bank, could not be relied upon, to vary the terms of agreement, with regard to interest, between the Parties. The complainant fully knew that he opted for adjustable/floating rate of interest, at the time of advancement of loan, in his favour, which was likely to change, from time to time, and, under these circumstances, he could not claim that since he was not informed, regarding the change, in rate of interest, from time to time, by the Opposite Party, he was not liable to pay the same. The principle of law, laid down, in Syndicate Bank`s case (supra), is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

13.           It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that once, vide letter dated 16.04.2012, Annexure P-16, the complainant was intimated by the Opposite Party, that his home loan account was made clear of all dues and had been closed, in its system, and he was directed to collect the original property documents/loan clearance certificate, by 15.06.2012, the amount of Rs.11,45,671/-, as on 30.04.2012, received by the Opposite Party, vide demand draft dated 30.04.2012, acknowledgment/receipt of which is made, by the Official of the Opposite Party, at the bottom of the letter dated 30.04.2012 Annexure P-15, was arbitrary. Annexures P-15 and P-16, were produced by the complainant, after moving an application, in that regard. Complete copy of the statement of account of the complainant, in respect of the home loan was produced by the Opposite Party, which is at pages 80 to 86 of the District Forum file. It is evident, from this document, that on 30.04.2012, a sum of Rs.18,06,819/-, was due against the complainant, to the Opposite Parties. In the written reply, a specific stand was taken by the Opposite Party, that the complainant approached the bank, for settlement of loan account. The Opposite Party, considered the offer made by the complainant, and entered into a settlement, as a result whereof, benefit of a sum of Rs.5,67,090/-, was granted to the complainant, against the outstanding loan amount. The complainant, thus, closed the loan account, by paying Rs.11,45,671/-. No rejoinder was filed by the complainant, to the written statement, to rebut the averments, in that regard, contained therein. These averments, were duly supported by the affidavit of Himendra Pal Singh, Manager of the Opposite Party Bank. This amount of Rs.11,45,671/-on account of settlement, paid by the complainant, vide demand draft dated 30.04.2012, was duly adjusted, on 02.05.2012, as is reflected from the statement of account Annexure R-1. On 02.05.2012, the balance amount, as per the statement of account, in the home loan account of the complainant, was shown as ‘nil’. It, therefore, could not be said that this amount of Rs.11,45,671/-, was charged, in excess, by the Opposite Party, from the complainant. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

14.            The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the Opposite Party, was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

15.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

16.            In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

17.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

18.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

19.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

January 4, 2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg