Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1620/2015

Surjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICIC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mohd. Izhar

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 1620                                                                                               

                                                                   Instituted on:  12.12.2015                                                                          

                                                                   Decided on:    23.08.2016

 

Surjeet Singh son of Ram Singh resident of Street No.2, Modern Colony, Naushera Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

1.   ICICI Bank Limited Ist Floor, 28-29, Prem Heights, Ajit Nagar, Near Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Manager.

 

2.      ICICI Bank Limited Kaula Park, Branch Sangrur through its Manager.

 

3.     ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051 ( India) through its MD/ Chairman.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Shri Mohd. Izhar, Advocate.                         

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES   :  Shri  G.S.Shergill, Advocate                         

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C. Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member       

 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Surjeet Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he had taken home loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on  18.10.2016 from the OPs. He is suffering from cancer.  The said loan was to be paid by the complainant within the period of 180 months in EMI of Rs.2354/- with interest 10% p.a.  but  the OPs now without informing the complainant extended the said months to 277 months and increased  the EMI i.e. Rs.2800/-  and rate of interest at 15% p.a. The complainant requested the OPs  not to change  the said loan agreement  as it is against the terms and conditions settled between  them at the time of said agreement but the OPs did not bother about the request of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed not to change the loan agreement dated 18.10.2016,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the Ops, preliminary objections on the grounds of time barred, maintainability, suppression of material facts and abuse of process of law have been taken up. On merits,  it is submitted that  the complainant was sanctioned the amount of Rs.2,19,000/-  instead of Rs.2,00,000/- as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant signed and his wife thumb marked the facility  agreement after admitting the contents.  The complainant was defaulting in repayment of loan amount.  It has been  submitted that  the complainant was granted the loan facility @10% adjustable  rate of interest with 180 EMI of Rs.2354/- .  It is wrong that the rate of interest was increased without intimation.  The rate of interest was increased as per the RBI guidelines and intimation was duly given to the complainant.  Moreover the EMI was increased to 277 months for enabling  the complainant to pay  the installments without any difficulty as due to increase of interest rate,  the EMI of complainant had gone high, therefore the EMI was increased to 277 months.  Since the complainant was granted loan facility at adjustable rate of interest, therefore the rate of interest was increased as per the RBI guidelines issued from time to time. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs-1 to Ex.OPs-3 and closed evidence.

4.             The complainant's grievance is that  without intimating him the Ops had extended the period of repayment of home loan  and also increased the rate of interest from 10% to 15%  and EMI  from Rs.2354/- to Rs.2800/-.

5.             The OPs have admitted that the  complainant was granted the loan facility @10%  adjustable rate of interest with 180 EMIs of Rs. 2354/- each.  Further, the OPs have stated that  rate of interest was increased as per the RBI guidelines  and intimation was duly given to the complainant.  The EMIs  were increased to 277 months for enabling the complainant  to pay the installment without any difficulty as due to increase of interest rate, the EMI of the complainant had gone high, therefore the EMI was increased to 277 months.

6.             After perusing the documents produced on record by both the parties and hearing arguments of  learned for parties, we find that the Ops have produced on record facility agreement Ex.OPs/2 which was duly signed by the complainant himself on 18.10.2006 wherein in clause 30A under the adjustable interest rate it has been mentioned that  the applicable interest  Rate shall be changed within each Reset period, based on  the then prevailing FRR, and the Borrower/s shall thereafter pay interest  on the Facility at such new rate. ICICI Bank will change the rate  on the first day on the month following the Reset period in which FRR is changed. In case titled as  Birbhan Goyal  Vs. ICICI Bank Limited, 2011 (3) CPJ 356,  it has been held by the Hon'ble Union Territory  State Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission, Chandigarh that  it is clear  from terms and conditions of agreement that  EMIs could be varied  by OP Bank, from time to time due to increase in rate of interest.  The order of the Forum is based on correct appreciation of evidence and law.  In this case, the order of the Forum for dismissal complaint was upheld.  In another case tilted as Anil Gupta  and another Vs.  ICICI bank Limited and others, First Appeal No.499 of 2015  decided on 06.10.2015 by the  Hon'ble State Commission Haryana, Panchkula, appeal  was dismissed.     

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                             

               Announced

                August 23, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)         (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                           President