DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.223/15

Birjesh/Brijesh Kumar Sharma

C/o Puneet Kataria

#1393, 8-Biswa

Gurgaon Village

Gurgaon-122001.                                                        .…Complainant

                                                VERSUS

ICICI Home Finance Company Limited

ICICI Towers

NBCC Place

Bhisham Pitamah Marg

Pragati Vihar

New Delhi-110003.                                            ….Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution:21.08.2005

Date of Order       :03.05.2023

Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi

          The complainant has made a request for passing an award directing ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP (i) to initiate action against the malpractices adopted by OP and also direct bank to stop deducting further amount of EMIs and refund the amount of additional EMIs paid after July, 2015.

          Brief facts of the case are as under:-

          The complainant purchased a house No. R-2016 Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad in 2002 for which he had taken a loan of Rs.5,24,000/- vide loan code No.LBDEG00000362377 from OP in May 2002.  As per loan agreement, the complainant was to re-pay the entire loan in 180 monthly EMIs of Rs.6,122/- each.  ROI (Rate of Interest) was to be on variable 11.50% as per sanction letter.  In Oct. 2002, the OP bank sent letter informing change in ROI and No. of EMIs (reduced 154 EMIs).

With the base loan of Rs. 5.24 Lakh. The OP disbursed top up loan of Rs.1,00,000/- vide loan No.LBDEL00000376913 on 30.12.2002 at the ROI 10.75%, to be paid in 180 EMIs and another top up loan of Rs.1,04,000/- vide Loan No. LBNOD 00000 563607 on 22.08.2003. The complainant stated that at the time of 2^nd top up loan, the OP did not provide any details and stated that this loan was related to base loan and number of EMIs will be equal to that of number of EMIs of base Home Loan.  The complainant also contended that the EMI was further reduced from 6,122/- to Rs.5,979/- on 07.02.2009 and further to Rs.5,764/- on 07.08.2009.  The complainant further stated that as per sanction letter dated 01.10.2002, the tenure of the loan repayment was to be completed in July 2015.

          The complainant further maintained that in view of above, the loan could have been completed in July, 2015.  But when he contacted OP to this effect that he was told that the EMIs of base home loan of Rs.5.24 Lakh had increased from 154 to 219 EMIs, EMIs of top up loan of one lac had increased from 180 to 387 and EMIs of top up loan of Rs.1.04 Lakh was also increased from 180 to 391.  The reason for increase in EMIs was due to hike in ROI upto 17.45 in case of base loan of Rs.5.24 Lakh and 18.20% in case of the top up of loan of Rs.1.04 Lakh.  It was also contended by the complainant that the OP had not responded to his e-mail regarding deduction of EMI from his account even after completion of EMIs and increment in ROI in any particular year and present ROI.  He has provided brief summary of home loan.

          OP, on the other hand, filed its reply.  Exparte order against OP was set aside by the State Commission in RP 221/16 and accordingly, this Forum allowed the written statement (short reply) vide its order dated 08.11.2017OP maintained that unless and until any averment is specifically admitted, all contents of complaint were denied.  OP contended that ROI was not fixed one in these loans but floating one which changes the Prime Lending Rate. As per Agreement, the floating rate of interest was adopted.  At the time of loan, ROI was 11.50% and it got reduced upto 9.25 and further increased upto 17.25% in case of base loan of Rs.5.24 Lakh.  The ROI was also changed in respect of other top up loans.  It was also maintained by OP that floating ROI was based on the rate of interest of RBI; issued from time to time. The OP also stated that statement of A/c, Repayment Schedule Report pre-payment summary and re-set letters sent to complainant, may be treated as part of this reply.  It was alleged that the complainant did not pay EMIs in time.  Adherence of time for EMI is essence of loan contract.  The OP also alleged that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on limitation point only.

          Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavit.  Written statement is on record so is rejoinder.  Oral arguments were heard and concluded.

          This Commission has gone into entire material placed on record.  Due consideration was given to arguments.  After going into the details, this Commission finds that the main grievance of the complainant hings around:-

1. Increase in nos. of EMIs against the agreed EMIs at the time of sanction of loan in respect of all the three loans.
2. As per sanction letter/Agreement, the tenure of these loans should have been completed on the date as mentioned in these sanctioned letters.  Despite the lapse of these dates, the OP continued to deduct the EMI from his account
3. The complainant was never intimated about the increase in ROI.

This Commission has gone into minutely in the sanction letter/ agreement of these loans.  There is mention in these sanction letter/Agreements, the complainant had accepted the floating rate of interest.  The same is based on prime lending rate. The same is further based on issuance of the rate of interest by the RBI periodically.  Agreements signed by the complainant were also seen.  The complainant cannot take this position to this effect that he was not briefed accordingly.  It is also noted and accepted by the complainant that initially the amount of EMI was reduced.  So, later on the ROI was found increased from 11.50% to 17.25% per annum.  The OP has also enclosed nos. of re-set letters regarding change in ROI.  But no proof of receipt was placed whether these re-set letters/revision in ROI were received on the part of complainant.  OP has also maintained that complainant had defaulted many a time.

It was further examined the letters indicating revision in ROI in respect of these loans, the OP has shown increasement in nos. of EMIs whereas amount of EMIs was kept same.  This Commission does also feel that in such case where FRR/PLR is adopted, the OP Bank usually increases the no. of EMIs instead of increase in amount of EMIs.  It appears that the OP Bank had not timely intimated about the increase in ROI.  The complainant continue to maintain that the tenure of loan shall be completed as per time indicated in sanction letter of these loan.  We feel that there had been lack of communication on the part of OP Bank.  After examining the statement of A/c, re-set letters etc., the OP Bank had acted as per loan Agreement entered between complainant and OP.

After considering the facts and circumstances and above discussion, this Commission is convinced that the OP had not timely communicated the change in ROI particularly increase in ROI/PLR which impacted his tenure of loan.  OP is deficient in service to this extent only.  Accordingly, OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 2 months failing which rate of interest @ 7% shall be levied till its realisation.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.