DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 639/10
Chirag Mathur
Ashirwad, Shyam Colony,
Jwala Nagar, Vaidya Ji Wali Lane,
Rampur (U.P.) PIN 244901 -Complainant
Vs
1. ICICI Bank Ltd.
ICICI Bank Tower
Bandra Kurla Complex
Mumbai 400051
2. ICICI Bank Ltd.
NBCC Place, Bhishma Pitamah Marg,
Pragati Vihar, New Delhi – 220003 - Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 11.10.2010 Date of Order: 10.08.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
The averments made in the complaint, in nutshell, are that the complainant had been appointed by the OP vide appointment letter dated 10.8.2007 by taking his interview at Bharti Vidhyapeeth’s Institute of Management & Research, New Delhi and there arose relationship of employee and employer between them. Vide this appointment letter, he was also offered concessional loan of Rs. 5 Lacs on joining as an employee of the Bank at concessional rate of 2.5%p.a.; that on joining the OP Bank the complainant took a loan amounting to Rs. 5 Lacs offered by the Bank on terms and conditions enumerated on a bond paper executed before public notary and as per the terms and conditions of the said bond paper, the loan amount was sanctioned at an interest rate of 2.5% p.a. and in case of cessation of service with the OP Bank for any reason whatsoever before the completion of three years period from the date of joining OP Bank, the complainant shall be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of disbursal of the loan till payment. It is inter-alia stated that the complainant resigned through online system of the Bank and requested to be relieved from bank services after months (sic) from the said date and vide letter dated 27.1.2010, the complainant requested to waive of penalty on the loan amount which was never replied by the OP; that vide communication dated 11.3.2010, the OP informed the complainant about the details of current loan outstanding amount as under:
i. Personal Loan Rs. 3,98,021.50
ii. Penal interest Rs. 1,26,430.00
iii. Total Rs. 5,24,451.50
In the meantime, the OP Bank waived the notice period by one month and six days from the three months’ period of the notice and allowed the complainant to be relieved on 12.3.2010; that the complainant was due to be relieved only after payment of over all outstanding and, therefore, he paid an amount of Rs. 5,24,452.00 by means of a cheque dated 12.3.2010 to the OP. According to the complainant, thereafter he put up the matter with the officers of the Bank and other Forums with regard to recovery of higher rate of interest in breach of the terms and conditions of the Bank agreement and even served legal notice upon the OP but to no effect. Therefore, pleading deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to pay to him a sum of Rs. 1,26,430.50 on account of excess interest charged by the Bank along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. from 12.3.2010 till the date of return of excess amount, to pay Rs. 5 Lacs towards damages for financial loss/mental agony and trauma etc., Rs. 22,060/- (Rs. 20,000.00 + Rs. 2,060 as Service Tax) on account of Legal Consultancy Charges plus other charges including charges for attending the case proceedings from time to time.
OP in its reply has inter-alia submitted that the loan of Rs. 5 Lacs had been issued to the complainant at a very subsidised rate of Rs. 2.5% which can be attributed solely to the fact that the complainant was an employee of the OP Bank at the time of procurement of the subject loan and, therefore, the loan had been given to him in the capacity of being an employee of the Bank and not as a consumer. It is further inter-alia pleaded that the foreclosure clause determining the liability to pay the interest @ 8% p.a. was further amended by an e-mail dated 15.7.2008 which had been duly sent by the concerned department of the OP Bank to all its employees and received by the complainant wherein the penal rate had been enhanced from 8% to 15% p.a. It is submitted that the complaint involves the dispute between the employer and the employee and hence the same falls beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In submission to the reply of the OP the complainant has inter-alia pleaded that on joining when the loan was sanctioned in clear terms on duly registered documents on court paper with condition that the rate of interest shall be @ 8% p.a. there was no scope to change the rate of 8% interest in further by the OP. He has denied having received the e-mail revising the rate of interest of the complainant and, in the alternative, has stated that even if it is assumed that the e-mail was sent, the same was not applicable to the complainant because of offer letter dated 10.7.2007 as well as contract paper signed between him and the OP on stamp paper in format designed by the OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Navin Trivedi, AR of the OP has been filed in evidence.
Complainant has relied on documents Ex. CW1/1 to CW1/11 but he has not marked the exhibits numbers on the corresponding documents. Copy of e-mail dated 15.7.2008 issued by the OP to working Directors/Senior General Manager etc. with regard to Changes in Employee Loan Policy has been filed as Ex. D1/1.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have also perused the record very carefully.
From a perusal of the pleading of the parties and the documents filed on their behalf it becomes crystal clear that the complainant had been offered and granted loan of Rs. 5 Lacs on his joining as an employee of the OP Bank. Therefore, the loan was given to him being an employee of the OP Bank and not as a consumer. He himself through online system resigned from the OP Bank and as per the terms of the loan agreement he had paid remaining loan amount along with interest as an employee and only thereafter he ceased to be an employee of the OP Bank. Thus, the loan was also cleared by him as an employee of the OP Bank. There is no documentary evidence on the record which may even suggest that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,26,430.50p on account of higher interest under any protest or he had reserved his rights to take suitable action against the OP Bank. It is also clear that the complainant had been given a copy of notice, copy of which is Ex. D1/1, which is dated 15.7.2008 and by this communication the existing penal interest of 8% p.a., which was levied in case an employee does not complete 3 years of service was revised to 15% p.a. It was an internal circular between the OP Bank and their employees. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had tendered his resignation from the OP Banks before completing 3 years of service. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to challenge the vires of the said communication (copy Ex. D1/1) before this Forum and the appropriate remedy for him lies somewhere else. We hold that the complainant has failed to prove that he was a consumer of the OP Bank at any stage.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 10.08.2016
Case No. 639/10
10.08.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
