| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.189/2008 Sh. Shankar Lal S/o Late Sh. Kashi Ram R/o 10651-52, Ground Floor, Manak Pura, New Delhi-5 ….Complainant Versus - M/S. ICICI H.F.C. Limited.
S-26; Veera Tower, Green Park Extn. New Delhi Through its Authorized Signatory - Mr. Manu Dua
Credit Card - Ms. Preeti Kaur
Branch Credit Manager - Mr. Devesh Kumar
Branch Sales Manager All At M/s. ICICI H.F.C. Limited S-26, Veera Tower, Green Park Extn., New Delhi ….Opposite Party Date of Institution : 28.03.2008 Date of Order : 05.01.2023 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava The Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking disbursal of Rs. 247 812 i.e remaining part of the sanction loan amount or to adjust the forced amount towards his car loan account; restore the tenure of the loan to its original agreed tenure i.e 143 EMIs instead of 103 and further reduce the amount of EMIs to its initial agreed EMI of loan; seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards physical harassment and mental torture and cost of legal proceedings. The OP 1 in this case is ICICI Bank, OP 2 is the credit head, OP 3 is the branch credit manager and OP 4 is branch sales manager. - It is the case of the Complainant that he being the owner of propertyno.10651-52 Manakpura, New Delhi-5 agreed for a financial facility of loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- against the said property and in this regard the OP forwarded initial offer letter to the Complainant on 27.11.2007.
- It is stated by the Complainant that on receipt of this letter, the Complainant sent a letter through fax address to OPno.2 and raised an objection with regard to clause no.8 i.e
(I)closure of proof of loan Of EMI of Rs.5,720/- against car (II) balance transfer to be done by OP since the Complainant had earlier opted loan from Allahabad bank (III) that no cheque would be presented for realisation towards processing fee without first informing the Complainant. It is further stated by the Complainant that he communicated to the OP that any loan amount less than Rs.20,00,000/- would not serve his purpose.
- It is further stated by the Complainant that the OP agreed to extend a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- and also agreed that the balance transfer with Allahabad bank would be done by the OP from their end and in terms thereof OP 2 and 3 showed a cheque of Rs.13,99,423/- dated 17.12.2007 to the Complainant and stated that Rs. 6,00,000/- have been sent to Allahabad bank separately through cheque and that they would be collecting the original property papers of the Complainant through their representative however, later the Complainant was told to collect the original papers of his property from Allahabad Bank.
- It is further stated by the Complainant that he handed over the original property papers to the OP but to his shock he was first asked to clear the car loan which was taken by the Complainant from one of the branches of OP 1. When the Complainant did not agree for clearing the said car loan, the OP without the consent of the Complainant deducted an amount of Rs. 2,45, 005/- out of the loan facility and handed over the cheque of Rs. 11,54,423/- to the Complainant on 05.01.2008 though originally he was shown a cheque of Rs.13,99,423/-.
- It is further stated by the Complainant that he raised objection vide letter dated 13.01.2008 as to the amount of the loan disbursed to him. An objection was also taken regarding the insurance taken in the name of the son of the Complainant by the OP bank though no such document was signed either by the Complainant or his son and the premium was deducted from the loan amount provided to the Complainant.
- The OP sent a communication dated 22.01.2008 where in the OP has suo moto changed schedule applicable to the housing facility loan. The Complainant states that all this have caused wrongful gain to the OP and loss to the Complainant and the OP have deducted the first EMI of Rs.33,198/- which never became due as the said cheque of Rs. 13,99, 423/- was never handed over to the Complainant. It is stated that the OP has shown a loan amount of Rs.19,84,474/- in the account of the Complainant whereas the Complainant has only been extended with the facility of Rs.17,54,423/- and an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- has been withheld by the OP but the OP has been asked to pay the premature EMI qua the amount of Rs.19,84,474/- and also the EMI of Rs.2,45,000/- which has not been released to the Complainant and is illegally withheld by the OP.
- It is further stated that though the amount sanctioned has been reduced in violation of the agreement but the Complainant has been asked to pay EMI of more than the agreed amount and the repayment schedule is beyond the capacity of the Complainant. It is stated by the Complainant that as per the statement of account received by him, the OP has adjusted a sum of Rs. 2,47,812/- as processing fee.
- It is further stated by the Complainant that in the statement dated 24.01.2008, the EMI tenure is shown as 135 whereas in the statement of account dated 12.02.2008, the EMI tenure has been unilaterally reduced to 103.
- The OP, in their reply has taken the preliminary objection that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide design to avoid repayment of loan taken, the complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law and has been filed to cover up mischief, misdeeds inaction, negligence on the part of the Complainant, there is no deficiency in service rendered by the OP, the Complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and that since the Complainant took the loan for commercial purpose he is not a consumer.
- It is stated that the OP had principally agreed to advance amount of Rs. 20,50,764/- and issued offer letter dated 27.11.2007 subject to various terms and conditions which included closure proof of loan with EMI of Rs. 5,720/- from ICICI loan account no. LADEL 00009316562.
- It is stated that as per the request of the Complainant, the OP took over the loan of Complainant from Allahabad bank and repaid an outstanding of Rs. 6,00,000/- on behalf of the Complainant. The copy of statement of loan account of loan disbursed to Complainant is annexed as Annexure 2.
- It is further stated that after part disbursal of loan, the OP sought proof of loan closure with EMI of Rs. 5,720/- for further disbursement which the Complainant failed even after accepting terms and conditions initially. The OP then deposited part of the disbursed amount of Rs. 2,45,500/- to effectively reduce loan burden/liability of the Complainant as per terms and conditions of the sanction and paid balance loan amount to Complainant. The copy of the repayment schedule showing deposit of the said amount in the loan account of the Complainant is attached as Annexure 3.
- It is further submitted that as per the request of the Complainant insurance was purchased from ICICI Lombard to secure the loan and an amount of Rs. 50,764/- was paid to the insurance company out of the loan sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 20,50,764/-.After the disbursement of the loan, the Complainant was not satisfied with the insurance and requested cancellation of the insurance policy. At his request, the OP recovered amount of Rs. 50,764/- from the said insurance company and the amount was credited back in the loan of the Complainant.
- It is also stated that the Complainant has signed the loan documents and agreed to repay the total amount along with interest in EMI which he is deliberately not paying and has filed false case against the OP. It is stated that the Complainant did not intimate the OP about their objection to any terms and conditions of the sanction and in fact signed on the said letter and returned the same to OP for disbursement of loan.
- It is stated that in case the Complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions he should not have accepted the said letter and should have refused to accept disbursement however, the Complainant malafidely took the loan and wilfully stopped repayment of the said loan.
- It is further stated that the decision not to disburse or reschedule or recall of loan is within the purview of the lender and this discretion cannot be taken away from them and it does not amount to deficiency in the service rendered.
The Complainant and the OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. The counsel for the OP appeared on the date of final arguments and since the matter was old, the matter was reserved for judgment. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and it is seen that there is no denial that the OP has disbursed a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- to Allahabad bank on behalf of the Complainant which was a part of Rs. 20,00,000/- loan sanctioned to the Complainant. There is also no denial that the amount of Rs. 2,45,005/- has been adjusted towards car loan of the Complainant with the OP bank and which, as per the OP, was a pre- condition for disbursal of the loan amount. When the Complainant did not pay the said loan, the OP adjusted that amount to reduce the EMI burden on the Complainant. It is also observed that the sanction letter of disbursal of Rs. 20,50,764/- loan amount has been signed by the Complainant his wife and his son. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that once the sanction letter has been signed by the Complainant, accepting the terms and conditions and the Complainant did not pay the said amount towards car loan, no fault can be found with the OP in laying and adhering to the pre-condition as provided for in the sanction letter. As far as the allegation of the OP of the Complainant not being a consumer is concerned, it is not sustainable as the Complainant is a consumer within the purview of the definition provided in the Consumer Protection Act even if the loan was taken for business purpose. However, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Commission is of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and that this complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website. | |
