BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No  : 1244 of 2009

Date    of  Institution :    01.09.2009

Date   of   Decision   :    25.01.2010

Shashi Kala Gupta, Resident of Kothi No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula, through Satinder Kumar Gupta, General Power of Attorney.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, SCO No.181-182, Top Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2]     The Manager, ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., SCO No.181-182, Top Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL               PRESIDENT

                DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh.Kapil Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                In brief, the complainant, who runs business under the name & style of Tanuj Roshi Poultry Farm, took a loan of Rs.1.10 Crore against her house from OP No.1, sanctioned vide letter dated 16.12.2005, for 10 years repayable in monthly installments of Rs.1,39,344/- w.e.f. 1.2.2006 and at variable interest rate of PLR plus 0.25%.  It is averred that the complainant paid the entire loan regularly till it was fully paid in Feb., 2009.  During May, 2007 to Nov., 2007, the complainant prepaid part of the loan amount to the tune of Rs.80.00 lacs whereupon she was sent repayment schedule wherein complainant noticed that there was difference/gap of 31 days to 50 days between the dates when the cheques were cleared from her bank and the date when OP gave credit for pre-payment and on making calculation as per the repayment schedule, it was found that OPs have charged extra amount of Rs.1,15,228/- as interest by not crediting her account timely and by delaying the credit for about 31 days to 50 days.  It is also averred that the complainant in response to the letter dated 27.12.2008 issued by OP, sent a cheque of Rs.1,14,733/- along with his reply dated 5.1.2009.  Thereafter, the pre EMI schedule and EMI Schedule dated 26.2.2009 was issued by OP and as per which, the complainant was to get refund of Rs.24,661/- but instead she got credit of Rs.23,545/- only from OP and thereby she was paid Rs.1116/- less.   The matter was brought to the notice of OPs and even a legal notice was served upon them for refunding the amount of Rs.1,41,100/- which were over charged from the complainant and a sum of Rs.1116/- which were paid less to her but inspite of that her account was not settled.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OPs as illegal, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss.  

2]             OPs filed joint reply and admitted the grant of loan and repayment thereof by the complainant.  It is stated that the interest was calculated on a monthly reducing basis and not on daily reducing basis.  It is also stated that the credit into the account of complainant was given correctly.  It is denied that any extra interest was charged from the complainant, as alleged.  The representatives of the bank had explained the position to the complainant in detail.  It is further stated in Para No.2 of the reply that as per accepted banking practices, in the case of loan on monthly reducing basis, as per policy, effect of part-prepayment is given on the next immediate due date, payable in the month following the part-prepayment effect. Denying rest of the allegations including any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.     

 5]            It is not disputed by the OP that payment of Rs.5,00,000/- each was made by the complainant on 11.05.07 and 21.05.07.  It is also admitted that the credit of this amount was not given on 1.06.07, which was the date of installment but the amount was kept by the OP without giving credit thereof for 31 to 50 days and the credit was given on 1.07.07. Annexure C-4 shows the opening principal on 1.05.07 as Rs.1,02,50,147/-.  However after payment of Rs.1,39,344/- on 1.05.07 and Rs.10,00,000/- during the month the principal amount decreased only Rs.28,608/- and it is shown to be Rs.1,02,21,846/- on 1.06.2007. The OP has not been able to show as to why the credit was not given on 1.06.07.  It is true that the interest is levied by the OP on monthly reducing basis and not on daily basis and first of each month was the date of payment on which the installments were to be paid.  It was therefore necessary for the OP to have given credit of the entire payment made during the month on the first of every succeeding month. Similarly, the complainant has paid Rs.5,00,000/- each on 5.07.07, 12.07.07 and 20.07.07.  The credit thereof should have been given on 1.08.07 but it was wrongly not given by the OP till 1.09.07 without any justification as is reflected from the A/c statement Annexure C-4.  The payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was again made by the complainant on 21.08.07 but the credit thereof was given on 1.10.07 instead of 1.09.07.  The complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 8.09.07 and the credit thereof should have been given on 1.10.07 instead of 1.11.07.  Similarly the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- each was made on 19.10.07 and 23.10.07, the credit thereof was given on 1.12.07 instead of 1.11.07.  The complainant further paid Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.11.07 and 15,00,000/- on 23.11.07. The credit of these payments should also have been given to the complainant on 1.12.07, which was not given till 1.01.08. The Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that in case of part pre-payment, the credit is not given on the next date of installment but is given one month thereafter.  He has not been able to show anything concrete to justify this unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs to cheat its customer. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of the OP, however they did not give credit of the said amount from due dates and rather compelled him to approach this Forum.

6]             The Learned Counsel for the complainant has also argued that he has been paid Rs.1116/- less than due from him, but he is unable to prove the same.

7]             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to give credit of part pre-payments on the next following first of each month as detailed above.  The OPs shall draw the statement of accounts in accordance with that and make the payment of the excess amount charged from him. They shall also pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for adopting this unfair trade practice. The entire amount alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this  order, failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of this complaint i.e. 01.09.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. 

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