DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM II
Udyog Sadan C 22 & 23 Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi 110016.
Case No.767/2009
Sh. Sudish Kumar
R/o 227 C Pocket C
Mayur Vihar Phase II
Delhi 110091 ….Complainant
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd.
S 26 First Floor Vira Tower
Green Park
New Delhi 110016 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution 14.10.09 Date of Order 10.08.16
Coram
Sh. N.K. Goel President
Ms. Naina Bakshi Member
O R D E R
According to the Complainant he availed a home loan of Rs.8.60 lacs from OP in February 2004 for purchasing a plot No. B 106 Sector 71 Noida. In the year 2006 he applied with the OP for a loan for constructing the said plot and the OP sanctioned Rs.9 lacs on 09.09.2006. It is stated that before disbursing the home loan for construction the OP insisted him for insurance policy from ICICI Prudential for Rs. 82 927/ for which the OP increased his loan amount of Rs.9 00 000/ to 9 82 927/ @ 11.75 interest. OP stated that after completion of the work upto DPC level the OP will release the loan in 3 4 installments. The OP released the first installment of Rs.1 99 534/ on 08.03.07 and on the request of the Complainant the OP released Rs.83533/ on 07.05.09 (sic). Another installment of Rs.136000/ was released on 21.06.07 and amount of Rs.41 000/ was released on 19.09.07 by the OP bank total amounting to Rs.460067/ for construction work. As the said amount was not sufficient to complete the construction work the OP should have released the whole amount within 3 4 installments as the OP had not mentioned the disbursement method of loan in terms and conditions. His entire construction work was stopped because of non release of money. He had to take extension of time from Noida Authority for construction and he had paid the charges of Rs.41245/ for extension of time. He approached the senior officials of the OP at Mumbai office vide letter dated 25.07.07 but no reply was received from the OP. He had no other option but to transfer his both the home loans from the OP to LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The OP closed both the accounts on 16.10.07 and 18.10.07 respectively by levied unusual charges as per closure letter and some other charges which was not mentioned in closure letter but shown in statement of account. The details of charges are given below
Pre Closure Charges 12 227 85
Of both loan account 17 836 43
L.P.P. Charges 182 00
Interest for the month 4 301 00
Both loan account 5 780 00
Charges as per statement 1 100 00
Account of both accounts 1 690 00
466 00
236 00
Administrative charges of both loan 5 517 00
As per sanction letter 4 300 00
53 636 28
= = = = = = =
I have bear the following expenses
Penalty charges for extension of time
period paid to Noida Authority 41 245 00
increased in cost of construction App. 1 00 000 00
for delayed period
1 94 881 28
= = = = = = = =
The LIC Housing Finance resolved his problem and released the fund to finish the remaining work. Complainant has prayed as under
- to direct the OP to refund the above amount along with interest and to pay Rs.50 000/ for mental harassment due to lack of service provided by the OP and Rs.15 000/ as litigation fees.
OP in the written statement inter alia stated that the Complainant availed two home loans vide loan account nos. LBDEL00001375556 & LBNOD0000696960 for Rs.860000/ on 13.02.04 and Rs.982000/ on 13.09.06 respectively. The Complainant availed the insurance policy at the time of finalization of loan agreement and after sometime he himself surrendered the said insurance policy and amount of insurance was credited to the Complainant s account. The funds released were in complete accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement; that in a construction link home loan the loan amount was disbursed according to the stage of construction and need of the borrower after he submitted such proof to the satisfaction to the OP regarding the stage/level of construction work and OP had disbursed the loan amount without any delay to the Complainant. It is stated that the delay in construction if any was on the part of the Complainant himself and the OP cannot be blamed for the same. It is stated as follows
It is submitted that even a bare perusal of the foreclosure letter for the Loan Account No. LBNOD00000696960 attached by the complainant himself along with his complaint would reveal that the foreclosure amount mentioned in the foreclosure letter was subject to the condition No. 2 mentioned in the foreclosure letter i.e. the complainant would pay the said amount by 28.9.2007 and for each day beyond this an additional interest would be charged at the rate of Rs. 275.27 per day. Further the condition No. 3 mentioned in the foreclosure letter clearly states that if the complainant forecloses his account after 07.10.2007 then the installment for the following month will become payable. It is pertinent to point out here that the as per the statement of account for the corresponding loan account the payment was made by the complainant on 11.10.2007 and accordingly the OP was well within its right to charge the installment for the following month as stated above an other incidental charges from the complainant.
Similarly a bare perusal of the foreclosure letter for the Loan Account No. LBDEL00001375556 attached by the complainant himself along with his complaint would reveal tht the foreclosure amount mentioned in the foreclosure letter was subject to the condition No. 2 mentioned in the foreclosure letter i.e. the complainant would pay the said amount by 28.9.2007 and for each day beyond this an additional interest would be charged at the rate of Rs. 153.61 per day. Further the condition No. 3 mentioned in the foreclosure letter clearly states that if the complainant forecloses his account after 30.09.2007 then the installment for the following month will become payable. It is pertinent to point out here that the as per the statement of account for the corresponding loan account the payment was made by the complainant on 11.10.2007 and accordingly the O.P. was well within its right to charge the installment for the following month as stated above an other incidental charges from the complainant.
OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Navin Trivedi AR has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is evident from the record that the Complainant had paid Rs.41245/ vide letter dated 28.11.07 for extension of construction work from 23.02.07 to 23.01.2008 to the Nodia Authority (we mark the document as Annexure A for the purpose of identification). From the said letter it becomes crystal clear that the complainant had deposited Rs. 20 200/ @ 4 towards extension charges for the period from 23.2.2007 to 22.8.2007 and Rs. 21 045/ @ 5 towards extension charges for the period from 23.8.2007 to 23.1.2008 and that along with this letter the complainant had also enclosed the previous extension letter dated 1.9.2006. Therefore it becomes crystal clear that the complainant had also earlier sought extension of time to carry out construction on the said plot from the Noida Authority. The first instalment of the loan of Rs. 1 99 534/ had been released to the complainant on 8.3.2007 while on the other hand the period for completing the construction of the plot had already expired and the complainant had sought extension and given extension vide letter dated 1.9.2006 and again applied for construction vide letter dated 28.11.2007. Therefore the delay if any in carrying out the construction on the plot was on the part of the complainant himself and no fault in this behalf can be attributed to the OP.
Copy of the foreclosure letter dated 28.9.2007 issued by the OP Bank to the complainant has been filed on the record by the complainant himself. We mark it as Mark B for the purposes of identification. The conditions are the same as mentioned in the reply of the OP reproduced hereinabove.
Therefore the OP did not commit any deficiency in service in realizing the charges in question from the complainant. Hence we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly we dismiss the complaint 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.
(Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
Announced on 10.08.16
Case No. 767/09
10.8.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
