Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/290

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madhu Bala - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Dogra

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

2^nd ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 290 of 2012

 

                                                                   Date of institution: 12.03.2012                                                                       Date of Decision:    05.03.2015  

 

ICICI Bank Ltd., Jalandhar Branch, G.T. Road, Jalandhar, Through its Authorized  Representative  Sh. H.P. Singh.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

1. Madhu Bala Wife  of  Sh. Karam Singh  Ahluwalia.
2. Karam Singh Ahluwalia, Son of Arjun Singh both resident of 5-A, Golden Avenue, Kanjli Road, Behind Jaggi market, Kapurthala, Tehsil & District  Kapurthala.

     ....Respondents/Complainants

 

First Appeal against the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.

Before:-

Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

For the appellant                   : Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate

For the respondent               : None

 

Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

ORDER

 

                  This appeal has been preferred by appellant/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as the OP No.3) under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the Act) against the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (in short the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 87 of 2011 vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants(hereinafter referred as the complainants) under section 12 of the Act, was allowed and Ops were directed to refund Rs. 31,510/- as pre-closure amount, besides 2,000/- as costs of litigation within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.

2.               Brief facts of the case are that the complainant No. 1 was working as Lecturer in Government Training Centre, while complainant No. 2 was a practicing Advocate at District Courts, Kapurthala. They purchased a 800 square feet plot in the year 2005 in Urban Estate set up by PUDA, on Kapurthala Jalandhar Road situated at Kapurthala for a sum of Rs. 27 lacs vide allotment letter dated 10.02.2005. They got sanctioned a loan of Rs. 15 lacs from the Op bank vide its agreement dated July 12, 2005. The Op bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 15 lacs against the said property at floating rate of interest @ 8.75% per annum with discount of 0.75%, at adjustable rate of interest vide Ex-A/1. The said loan was disbursed on 19.07.2005 and the same was to be repaid in 180 monthly installment of Rs. 13,303/- and Ops bank  also took 36 blank cheques drawn on Indian Bank, Kapurthala for a sum of Rs. 13,303/- towards the repayment of loan. On 30.01.2010 the complainants received an intimation from the bank that a sum of Rs. 7, 79,208/- was adjusted by the Op bank towards interest and a meager amount of Rs. 72,212/- was adjusted in the principal loan amount. In February 2010, they approached the OPs bank to clear their loan amount and were informed by the bank vide their letter dated 24.02.2010, that the amount to be paid by them was as under:-

1.           Principal O/s                                             Rs. 14,25,828.16
2.           Cheque Bouncing Charges                    Rs.          2219.00
3.           Interest                                                      Rs.        10,931.13
4.           Pre-payment charges @ 2.21                 Rs.        31,510.00
5.           Pending Installments                               Rs.                     00
6.           Other charges                                           Rs.              100.00

                            Total amount payable                              Rs.14, 70,389.09

 

                  On receipt of Ops letter dated 24.02.2010, they requested the Ops that they want to close their account in full. They received another letter from the Ops bank dated 03.04.2010 wherein further details of the amount to be paid were shown to the extent of Rs. 14,72,597.87ps. On receipt of the second letter they made representation to the bank that as per loan sanctioned terms they were to pay an amount of Rs. 13,303/- per month as EMI but the bank had started collecting Rs. 16,238/- from them and they should not be charged Rs. 31,510.80ps as pre-payment charges, for closing their loan account. On their failure to get any favourable reply on their representation from the Op bank they filed their consumer complaint with a prayer for issuance of directions to refund the amount of Rs. 31,510/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. and further direct the Ops to pay the excess interest amount recovered from them and also to be paid damages of Rs. 20,000/- on account of deficiency in service and for adopting unfair trade practices.

3.               Notice of the complaint was sent to Ops, after getting service and duly acknowledged the notice by affixing the bank’s seal for appearance in District Forum for 19.08.2011. On 19.08.2011 the representatives of the Ops bank sought time to file reply on the next date i.e. 26.08.2011. Ops failed to appear before the District Forum on 26.08.2011 and therefore they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.               District Forum allowed the parties to lead their evidence in support of their averments.       

5.               The complainants tendered the affidavit of K.S. Ahluwalia as Ex-C/1 sale deed Ex-C/2 letters of different dates Ex-C/3 and C/4 postal receipts Ex-C/5 to C/7.

6.               District Forum after going through the record and hearing learned counsel of the complainants allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

7.               The Ops have contested the order of the District Forum on the ground that the order was passed at their back and they were not aware of the passing of impugned order and came to know about the passing of the said order, on receipt of the copy from the District Forum by post. They were not properly served before the District Forum. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is illegal and erroneous and was passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures and, as such, deserves to be set aside. It has been further contended that at the time of availing loan by complainants an agreement was executed between them.  At the time of the sanction of the loan the Ops bank had in clear cut terms written that if the loan is pre-paid then the bank would be entitled to charge 2% on the prepaid amount and was also required to charge 0.2% on account of levies and taxes. The complainants with deliberate intention did not produce these documents on record of the District Forum and obtained the impugned order by misleading the District Forum and, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8.        We have heard the counsel of the Ops and have perused the record. From the record it is seen that the notice of the complaint for hearing on 19.08.2011 was duly served on the Ops Bank on 04.08.2011. On 19.08.2011 the representative of the bank gave a memo of appearance and was advised to file their regular power of attorney by 26.08.2011. On 26.08.2011 nobody appeared in the District Forum, from the side of the OPs bank and was proceeded ex-parte.  In view of the above facts, the arguments put forth by the counsel of the appellants, that no opportunity was given to them and the order of the District Forum was passed on their back is not a valid argument.

9.               From the perusal of the documents Ex-A/1 filed along with the appeal, it pertains to provisional housing loan sanction letter for Rs. 15 lacs dated 12.07.2005. In the said letter, it was mentioned fees for part repayments of loan 0% on amount prepaid. However, in the next column fees on full and final pre-payment was shown as 2% of the amount prepaid shall be charged. From the perusal of home loan basic document on the 1^st page there is a mention of EMIs to the tune of Rs. 13,303/- for 1 to 180 installments, thereafter Rs. 8,624/- was mentioned for payment of EMIs from 181 to 216 months. In the loan agreement no specific pre-payment charges were mentioned. On page 14 of the document under the head interest, columns from (a) to (f) are left blank and a line is marked across reflecting that the terms are not applicable. Similarly, is the case for the terms and conditions mentioned on Page-15 and thereafter, and also on Page no. 18 regarding part pre-payment fees and towards full pre-payment of the loan amount columns are blank. On Page no. 18 of the loan agreement EMIs calculated on the basis of monthly rests has been mentioned and on Page-19 the amount for recovering the installments are duly incorporated. From these details no pre-payment charges were shown to be recoverable for pre-payment of the loan. From the perusal of Ex-C/5, C-6 & C-7 it is observed that the complainant had issued two cheques for a sum of Rs. 9 lac and 5 lac dated 29.03.2010 drawn on their personal account maintained at Canara Bank, and the balance amount of loan to the extent of Rs. 70, 457/- was deposited by them on 03.04.2010 by cash deposit.

10.             It is further, observed by us that the Ops bank had not placed on record the loan statement from the date of advance till the final date of closure pertaining to the complainants account. In view of clause in sanction letter after a borrower deposits part payment in her/his account then no pre-payment fees/charges will be levied by the bank.

11.             The Nodal Agency for home loans i.e. National housing Bank had issued a notification with regard to the prepayment charges, where in it was mentioned that in case the payment is made from own sources, then no prepayment charges can be levied. In case, it has been shifted to some other financial institution, then prepayment charges will be paid. Here in this case, the complainants had deposited cheques in favour of the OPs bank drawn on their personal account and account was not shifted to another bank.

12.             In view of the above facts and after going through the record on the file we are of the opinion that in absence of any particular clause in basic loan agreement pertaining to pre-payment charges, Ops bank should not have charged pre-payment closure charges. Accordingly, we find there is no justification for setting-aside the District Forum order and the same is upheld.

13.             Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

14.              The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 16,755/- at the time of filing the appeal in the Commission, registry is here by directed to remit these amounts along within interest, if any, after 45 days from the date of this order to the complainant. The Ops are further directed to pay the remaining amount to the complainant as per the directions of the District Forum.

15.              This argument in this appeal was heard on 24.02.2015 and order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

16.              This appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

        (GURCHARAN SINGHSARAN)

                                                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

      (JASBIR SINGH GILL)

                   MEMBER

   

 

 

(HARCHARAN SINGHGURAM)

March 5, 2015                                              MEMBER               

Surinder