Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/6/2023

ICICI BANK LTD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRS. S. MANIMEGALAI, W/O MR. A.C.N. SIVASUBRAMANI (L) - Opp.Party(s)

MR.K. KUMARAN

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 6 of 2023

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.9 of 2022 dated 24.08.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Chengalpattu.

 

Friday, the 24^th day of March 2023

 

1.  The ICICI Bank Ltd.,

     Rep. by its Chairman

         cum Managing Director

     Race Course, Vadodhara

     Acting through:

     ICICI Home Finance Co.Ltd.

     ICICI Bank Tower

     Bandra Kurla Complex

     Mumbai – 400 051

 

2.  The ICICI Bank Ltd.

     Rep. by its Manager

      (Home Loan Section)

     No.24, 1^st floor, Block No.1

     Arihant Insight, Industrial Estate

     Ambattur, Chennai– 600 058.                .. Appellants/

Opposite Parties

 

- Vs –

Mrs. S. Manimegalai

W/o. (Late) A.C.N.Sivasubramani

No.8, Veeravanchi Street

Chitlapakkam,

Chennai – 600 064.                              .. Respondent/ Complainant

 

  Counsel for Appellants /

Opposite parties                 :  M/s.K. Kumaran

  Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant   :   M/s.A.Manoj Kumar                                                                       

 

                The Respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 24.08.2022 in CC. No.9/2022.

 

                This petition came before us for hearing finally, today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

        1.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

 

        2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that her husband availed home loan from the 1^st opposite party on the strength of security assets pledged to the bank.  After scrutiny of the documents submitted by the complainant’s husband, a loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with a repayment tenure of 192 months, on a monthly EMI of Rs.7167/-, was disbursed by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant stood as a co-applicant and a guarantor for the said home loan.  The complainant’s husband was repaying the loan promptly from the year 2004 till his demise on 05.10.2019.  Till then, the loan amount repaid by them was Rs.16,16,125/- in 187 EMIs to the 1^st opposite party.  All of a sudden, without any additional loan agreement and without providing rationale explanation to the complainant, the 1^st opposite party Bank have simply extended the instalments further from 192 to 323 EMIs.  The said extension of EMIs was in contravention to the loan agreement.  Further, to the shock and surprise, the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that her loan account has been transferred to ICICI Anna Nagar Branch about 1½ years before and hence instructed her to approach Anna Nagar branch.  Since the loan account was transferred to Anna Nagar Branch without informing to the complainant, an explanation was sought for by the complainant.  But, there was no response.  Finally, the complainant sent a legal notice on 24.09.2021 to the opposite parties but the opposite parties failed to reply the legal notice.  Thus, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, she has filed the complaint before the District Commission claiming to refund the excess amount of Rs.3,00,000/- collected from the complainant and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 

 

        3.     Though notice was served, the Appellants/ opposite parties, remained absent before the District Commission and hence on 28.03.2022 they were set ex-parte.  Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order directing the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to refund the excess sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony, along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, to the complainant.  Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits. 

 

        4. Before this commission, the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Appellant Bank and that they have got valid defence and a fair chance of succeeding the complaint.  The notice issued by the District Commission was served on them on 07.02.2022.  As per Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protect Act, 2019, the appellants/opposite parties are entitled for 45 days time to file their version.  Hence, they had time till 28.05.2022 for filing their version, after excluding the limitation period due to COVID.  Therefore, they sought to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

 

 

        5. When the case had come up before this Commission on 08.03.2023, after hearing the submission of both sides, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and therefore in order to give a chance to the opposite parties to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties, in not appearing before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 23.03.2023. Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

        6. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Chengalpattu, in C.C.No.9/2022 dt.24.08.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Chengalpattu, for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.

 

        Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Chengalpattu on 24.04.2023, for taking further instructions.  On which date itself, the opposite parties shall file their vakalat, written version, proof affidavit and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months from the date of appearance, according to law and on merits.  

        The amount deposited by the appellants, shall remain in the custody of this commission, till the disposal of the original complaint.

 

 

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                       R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2023