Haryana

Kurukshetra

182/2016

Raj Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI - Opp.Party(s)

Himanshu Aggarqwal

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.182 of 2016.

Date of instt: 06.07.2016. 

                                                                       Date of Decision:22.01.2019.

Rajpal son of Ranjit Singh, resident of House No.1998, Sector-4, Housing Board Colony, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, SCO No.7-8, Sector-17, Kurukshetra.
2. The Chief Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Opposite Mini Sectt. Karnal.
3. Managing Director, Registered Office, ICICI Bank Limited, Land Mark, Race Course, Circle, Vadodara.

 

..………Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

                       

Present:     Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh. Rohit Jindal, Adv. for OPs.

           

ORDER

                     This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rajpal against Branch Manager, ICICI Bank and others, the opposite parties.

2.              Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 30.3.2007, the Op No.1 sanctioned a house loan for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the construction of his house and the same was repayable in 144 monthly installments with floating rate of interest as per loan agreement executed in favour of the Ops by the complainant. The complainant regularly paid the installment up to date and he wanted to know the status of his loan account and interest charged by Op No.2, but OP No.2 did not show the statement of account from the date of sanction of loan till today along with floating rate of interest charged on his loan account.  The complainant requested the Ops many times to show the status of his loan account but they did not pay any heed. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to  supply the copy of agreement and documents of mortgage in favour of bank, supply the copy of all other documents relating to loan account, supply the loan statement showing the rate of interest charged from time to time along with benchmark prime lending rate, to supply the statement of floating rate of interest, to refund the excess amount, if any, or adjust in to the loan account and to pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation charges and other reliefs.

3.             The Ops have failed to come present and as such they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 24.8.2016.  The Ops filed an application to set-aside the exparte order and this Forum dismissed the application vide order dt. 01.02.2018.  Against the aforesaid orders, the Ops filed the revision before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana and Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana vide order dt. 13.03.2018 set-aside the orders dt. 24.08.2016 and 01.08.2012 passed by this Forum, subject to the conditional cost of Rs.5000/- which was to be paid by the Ops to the complainant.

                Thereafter, after giving the cost of Rs.5,000/- by the Ops to the complainant, written statement was filed by the Ops raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the dispute between the parties is in the nature of a suit for rendition of accounts which is not covered under the purview of the CPA; that the complainant had approached the Ops for financial assistance for home loan and after considering the application on various parameters, the complainant was sanctioned and disbursed home loan of Rs.4,04,000/- in March, 2007 with floating rate of interest (FRR 11.75%-Margin 0.75%)=11.00% p.a. which was repayable in 144 months (12 years).  Whenever there is an increase in rate of interest, the Ops increased tenure of the loan, in order to avoid burdening the complainant with higher EMI and the same has been duly mentioned in the loan agreement duly signed by the complainant at the time of disbursement.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The counsel of complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.           On the other hand, the counsel of Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has received documents mentioned in para (a) to (c) of prayer clause from the Ops but he has not received the documents as mentioned in para (d) of prayer clause.  The counsel of complainant further contended that the Ops have taken the excess amount from the complainant, so, the order may please be passed to refund the excess amount to the complainant.  The counsel of complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2012(4) CPJ page 415 titled as IDBI Bank Ltd. & another Vs. Subhash Chand Jain & another (NC); 2016(5) RCR (Civil) page 901 titled as M/s. S.P.Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India and others (P & H High Court) and 2015(3) RCR (Civil) page 788 titled as ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Goyal (State Commission, Punjab).

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops contended that the Ops have given all the documents as mentioned in the complaint.  Regarding para (d) of prayer clause, the Ops have supplied the documents which are Mark-A and Mark-B.  The counsel of Ops further contended that RBI has not fixed the rate of interest of different banks as mentioned in Mark-A and Mark-B.  Every bank has power to decide the rate of interest by its own level.  The counsel of Ops further contended that the Ops have not taken any excess amount from the complainant.  The Ops have taken the amount as per amendment which was on the file, so, the complaint may please be dismissed.  The counsel of Ops placed reliance upon the case law cited in 1991(1) CPJ page 110 titled as House of Dubary Vs. New Bank of India and others (NC); 2014(2) CPR page 550 titled as Nugas Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Bal Bharti Varisht Madhyamic Vidyalaya; 1999(1) CPJ page 475 titled as Om Goel Spinners Vs. Indian Bank (State Commission, Haryana) and 2015(3) CPJ page 507 titled as ICICI Bank Vs. Ganga Singh (NC).    

9.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that all the documents were given by the Ops to the complainant as per statement given by both the parties on 21.01.2019.  In view of statement of both the parties, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to supply statement of account regarding housing loan of complainant from the year 2016 upto date.  So far as relief of excess amount regarding para (e) of prayer clause is concerned, the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint that the Ops have taken any excess amount from the complainant.  It is only mentioned in prayer clause to refund the excess amount.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to try this type of cases because Civil Court is best platform to adjudicate such type of cases.  We can rely upon the citation submitted by the counsel of Ops titled as Om Goel Spinners Vs. Indian Bank (supra), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble State Commission that “Bank loan-Interest-Disputed question-Complaint filed against bank alleging charging of higher rate of interest and for detaining the title deeds pledged with bank even after repayment of loan-It was alleged by opposite party-Bank that the dispute pertains to rendition of account-There were allegations with counter purposes-Such disputed question cannot be decided under the limited jurisdiction conferred by Consumer Protection Act-Complainant relegated to civil remedy-Complaint dismissed”.  So, in view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in the said authority, the complainant can approach to the Civil Court for the refund of excess amount, if any, taken by the Ops from the complainant.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:22.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.