Delhi

New Delhi

CC/660/2011

RUCHI JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/660/11                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Smt. Ruchi Jain,

W/o Sh. Vikas Jain,

R/o A-1, Rehman Market,

Sadar Bazar, Near Paan Mandi, Delhi-110006

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

ICICI Bank,

Through its Manager/Director,

Videocon tower, Ground Floor,

Jhandewalan, Karol Bagh, Delhi

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER (Oral)

Date of Arguments: 06.04.2015

Member: Ritu Garodia

Present:    Complainant.

                None for OP.

               

The Complaint pertains to deficiency on the part of OP bank in enhancing the repayment schedule of loan of Rs.52,16,673/- sanctioned to complainant which was payable in 180 installments on floating rate of interest on 03.07.06. The Complainant continued making payments as scheduled till July 2011 when he received a SOA on 25.07.11 indicating that tenure of loan has been enhance to 539 installment i.e. from 15 years to approx 50 years indicating an amount of Rs.2,52,46,326/- yet to be paid. The installment was fixed from Rs.54,474/- to Rs.56,740/-. This arrangement was without the knowledge and prior intimation to complainant. It is obviously beyond the paying capacity of complainant for next 50 years. He has already paid Rs.30,11,621/- out of original sanctioned loan of Rs.5,216,673/-.

It is alleged that faced with this difficulty, he approached ICICI Bank vide letter dated 03.05.11 pointing out that bank has not given any notice to him regarding increase in interest rate and tenure of loan. He sent multiple letters which were returned back with remark “refused”. One of the letters was opened before us today and placed on record.

In the meantime, the bank declared the account as NPA and initiated proceedings under SARFESI Act which proceeding was sub-judice under Consumer Forum. OP did not file any reply and moved an application for dismisal of complaint without calling for evidence. OP filed an affidavit, which cannot be accepted in absence of pleadings. The affidavit talks of proceedings under SARFESI Act but is silent as alleged deficiency. Application u/o 7 R11, CPC was separately dismissed on 29.11.13.

 We have summarily considered the entire matter. Defence of OP is struck off. We configure this order only to extent of deficiency alleged in increasing the tenure without knowledge, consent or notice to complainant and also for not heeding to his request sent by telephone and post and ignoring him when he approached in person, forcing him to file the present complaint. Here, also OP has dragged its feet and not properly assisted the Forum in appreciating its case and explaining the facts.

In the circumstances, we hold OP grossly deficient in service and imperfection in dealing with consumers along with harassment caused to him. We award him consolidated punitive compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. This is without prejudice to right of parties under SARFESI Act.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 06.04.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER