Per Mr.Narendra Kawde –Hon’ble Member:
1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 24/08/2011 passed in Consumer Complaint No.632/2009, Mr.Saprem Thakur V/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., by the Distrcit Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District.
2. Forum below, accepting the contention of the Complainant partly allowed the consumer complaint holding deficiency in service against the Appellant/Opponent - ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) and directed to revise the rate of interest to 9.75% per annum effective from 1st May, 2009 and thereafter, interest on the loan be charged as per the prime lending rate @1.25% per annum on restructuring the loan accordingly. District Forum also awarded compensation of `25,000/-. Aggrieved with the impugned order the Bank preferred this appeal on the ground that there was no cause of action against the Opponent. The complaint suffers from misjoinder and non-joinder as the co-borrower viz. wife of the Complainant did not join as a party to the complaint. There is utter confusion or feigning ignorance with the Complainant as conversion of loan differs from floating rate of interest on the loan amount. No deficiency has been incurred by the Bank and the impugned order is bad in law as District Forum has not considered the vital aspects emerging to hold deficiency in service.
3. Heard Mr.Mannadiar, Advocate for the Appellant. None present for the Respondent.
4. Undisputed facts are that a housing loan of `8,00,000/- was disbursed jointly to the Complainant and his wife by executing agreement with certain stipulation as to sanction of the loan. Agreement was executed on 20.02.2006 between the parties. Sanction of loan was as per the terms and conditions of the Schedule “B’ of the agreement, with floating rate of interest @9.25% per annum with adjustable rate of interest: ICICI Bank Floating Reference Rate ± 1.25% p.a. = 8% p.a. with term of repayment 120 months. The Complainant had made no formal request to the appropriate authority of the Bank and instead requested the employees of the Bank viz.Sachin Talekar and Ms.Krishna Patel for conversion of loan. Said employees of the Bank quoted conversion charges of `3,607/- and `12,500/- respectively. On failure to comply with the request made to the employees of the Bank the Complainant issued letter that he was not under obligation to pay an enhanced rate interest on the principal amount effective from March, 2009. Housing loan is sanctioned in the joint names of Complainant and his wife. However, the reasons best known to the Complainant, Co-borrower (wife of the Complainant) has not been joined as a party to the complaint.
5. The Bank did not concede to the demand of the Complainant to charge rate of interest @9.75% effective from May, 2009, the Complainant has preferred consumer complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum passed the impugned order allowing the consumer complaint partly. Aggrieved thereby the Bank preferred this appeal.
6. Heard. Perused the record placed before us. The consumer complaint suffers from mis-joinder and also non-joinder of the required parties. It appears that the Complainant was not clear what service he was seeking from the Bank as the loan sanctioned undisputedly is subject to floating rate of interest and there was no need to change this plan of repayment. However, Complainant was interested for conversion of loan, on advice of one friend, which is not spelt out anywhere in the formal application and only on verbal enquiries with the employees of the Bank were made. As submitted by the Ld.Advocate for the Bank, conversion and floating rate of interest on loan sanctioned are two distinct things. The Complainant was not clear as to what was the requirement put-forth by him in respect of repayment of the structured loan. The District Forum while allowing the consumer complaint overlooked the provision of loan agreement executed amongst the parties which provides for floating rate of interest as per Schedule ‘B’, condition (E) (b) and ordered to restructure loan w.e.f. 1st May, 2009 @9.75% per annum along with changing prime lending rate of interest over and above 1.25% per annum. The impugned order makes no sense as the provision is already incorporated in the agreement to charge floating rate of interest ± @1.25% per annum =8%. We do not find that the Complainant has made out a case to hold deficiency in service against the Bank. Order under challenge therefore is not as per provisions of the Loan agreement and therefore, deserves to be set aside accepting the contention of the Bank. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside.
In the result, consumer complaint stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 21st March, 2013.
