Delhi

New Delhi

CC/349/2009

Satish Chander Sharma & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/349/09                              Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Mr. Satish Chander Sharma,
2. Ms. Sudha Sharma,
3. Mr. Kshitij Sharma,

38/10, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-07

 

……..COMPLAINANTS

       

VERSUS

1. ICICI Bank (C.P-II),

21, Naurang House, K.G Marg,

New Delhi-01

 

2. ICICI Home Finance Ltd.,

ICICI Tower, NBCC Place,

Bhisma Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar,

New Delhi-110003

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The short case of complainant is that he availed a loan of certain amount from ICICI Bank, at particular rate which could vary within pre-set limits. He stated making payments, but bank kept on increasing changed rates, which were higher than what was charged with new customers, who took loan after him. He also learnt that other bank namely Centurion Bank of Punjab was offering lower & better loan. On request of complainant, his outstanding loan was taken over by the Centurion Bank, and complainant closed his account with OP Bank. The OP bank however, charged Rs.19,997/- as pre-closure charges @ 2.5% on the outstanding sum.

The grievances of the complainant is that, this takeover of loan by another bank, cannot be called ‘pre-closure’ but a ‘takeover’ and no pre-closure charges were payable and OP committed a deficiency in service. In support of this complainant has placed a judgment of Justice J.D Kapoor of Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission and also a decision of Karnataka State Commission III (2009) CPJ 62 up held by National Commission in the case of SBI Vs. Usha Vaid & Ors in R.P no.2466/2007 dated 26.07.07.

We have summarily considered the complaint, reply justifies the charges of pre-mature payment charges as pre-payment or pre-closure charges in terms of the loan agreement Exh.RW1/1 exhibited between the parties.

After considering the entire rival case and material on record, submissions and legal position, we are of the view that such a clause is in nature of ‘terrorism’ or in the nature of penalty and hit by S.74 of the Indian Contract Act. It is also being against public policy u/s 23 of the Contract Act, if someone is discouraged to settle his loan early and hits his constitutional freedom of trade guaranteed under Article 19(1) the Constitution of India.

We hold the OP guilty of deficiency & direct OP to return Rs.19,997/- charged as pre-closure charges with interest of 9% from date of charge till date of payment. We award compensation of Rs.15,000/- inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 29.10.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER