FA  315 of 2012   against CC 996/2010    on the file of the District Consumer Forum-1, Hyderabad.

Between :

1. M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd

Land Mark Race course Circle,

Vadodra – 390007.

2. M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd

Acting for ICICI Home Finance Company ltd

Begumpet branch, Secunderabad

Rep. by its Branch Manager                                  ..Appellant/Opp. Party

And

Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, S/o S. B. Pandey

Aged about 45 years, occ ; Business

R/o Plot no. 21, Laxmi Enclave,

3-6-158/5, near Krupa Anand Hall,

Maredpally, Secunderabad                                    .. Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant             :           M/s. P. Ramachandran

Counsel for the Respondent         :           M/s. B.S. Prasad took notice for the                                                                                  caveator  /respondent but did not file                                                                               vakalat.

Coram           ;          

                              Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao…      Hon’ble Member

And

                                    Sri T. Ashok Kumar                ..         Hon’ble Member

Friday, the Twenty Eighth  Day of December

Two Thousand Twelve

          Oral Order       :   ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )

****

       1.        This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party   as against the  orders dated 08.02.2012   in CC996/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-1, Hyderabad  . For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :

2.            The brief facts of the complaint  are that  the opposite party Bank had

Availed  LIC Housing loan from the OP Bank vide loan A/c No. LBHYD 00000710800 with interest @ 7.25% PA to be repaid in 262 EMIs @ Rs.12,207/- per month. In the statement of Account dated 19.3.2008, he noticed that the OP bank had charged more interest than 7.25%  without issuing any  notice and consent and extended tenure of the loan. The complainant issued a notice dt. 21.3.2008 to the Ops for furnishing break up figures. The OP bank obtained complainant’s signatures on all printed  standard formats without his knowledge. He got issued another notice dt.126.2008 to OP to fore-close Account and refund  excess amount charged.  Statement of Account for the period fro 6.7.2007 to 5.7.2009 discloses that EMIS of Rs.12,207/- consists of principal amount of rs.166/- and interest of Rs.12,041/-. During the month of April, 2009, the complainant had offered to switch over to a new scheme, where by the interest is reduced from 13.7% to 9.75%  and he had to pay Rs.20,603/- towards switch charges vide cheque no. 131719. Despite RBI guidelines, the OP reduced the interest rate only after collecting 1.7% outstanding loan amount amounting to Rs.20,603/- as switch charges. Collecting switch over charges and demanding huge amounts towards foreclosure charges are against the principles of natural justice. Charging increased  interest rate on the ground  of  change in PLR without intimation is illegal and that the bank has to charge only agreed rate of interest and refund excess amount of Rs.1,05,393/- and adjust the same in future installments and hence the complaint to refund Rs.20,603/- with interest @18%PA from 09.4.2009,  to pay Rs.21,05,393/- towards excess interest collected with interest from the date of complaint, Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation and costs.

3.            OP  filed counter  admitting the availment of loan on 24.2.2004  by the complainant agreeing to repay the loan with  interest @ 7.25% pa in 262 installments @ Rs.12,207/- per month and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter  are as under :

The complainant had  opted for floating rate of interest. Whenever there is change in the rate of interest tenure  of payment or to retain the EMI as fixed to suit him, he was informed through due notice to him. The complainant had requested for pre-closure statement of loan on 2.8.2006 and obtained pre closure statement on 25.8.2008 and 20.3.2009.  The complainant had opted for floating rate of interest and wanted to pay the same EMI for extended period when the rate of interest was increased and he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,603/- towards switch charges for reducing rate of interest from 13.7% to 9.7%  with concession 3.75%  on par with the new loan rate. It had charged the rate of interest as per the guidelines of RBI from time to time. The OP bank sent letters again through Express IT courier on the request of the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

  4.          Both sides  filed her evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings  and  Ex. A1 to A19  were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B1  to B6  were  marked for the OP.

05. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs.20,603/- with interest @ 12% PA from 0904.2009 till payment and costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant giving 30 days time for compliance.

6.            Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful OPs  filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that having agreed to pay switch over charges for reducing the rate of interest from 13.7% to 9.7% PA, the complainant paid Rs.20,603/- and also executed Ex. B4 amendatory agreement he cannot agitate for the same and that the District Forum did not appreciate the said aspect in a proper manner and that arrived at a wrong conclusion in directing the OP  to pay the said amounts and therefore the order under appeal is not sustainable and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

7.            Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts  ?

8.       There is no dispute that the complainant availed Housing loan on 24.02.2004 from OP Bank vide loan Account No. . LBHYD 00000710800 with interest @ 7.25% PA to be repaid in 262 EMIs @ Rs.12,207/- per month. The complainant contended that OP had charged more interest than  what was agreed to be paid without any consent or notice to him. Ops contended that they did not charge any interest more than agreed. Since the complainant had opted for floating of interest the District Forum assigning reasons held that he cannot find fault with the Ops, for having increased the interest rate from time to time even without notice to; him or his consent. Consequently it was held that the complainant is not entitled to refund of amount collected towards increased rate of interest. As against the said finding, the complainant did not prefer any cross appeal and thus the said finding attained its finality.

9.    Another aspect agitated by the complainant is that he was compelled to pay additional amount of Rs.21,603/- towards switch charges in order to reduce the rate of interest from 13.75 to 9.75 vide cheque no. 131719 drawn on ICICI bank.  There is no dispute that the said amount was collected from the complainant and the contention of the Ops is that the complainant duly entered into Ex. B4 amendatory agreement to switch over from present interest rate scheme to adjustable ROI ( based on ICICI bank floating interest rate ) (FRR ) and thereby the rate of interest was reduced from 13.7% to 9.7% PA giving concession of 3.75%. The complainant contends that on receiving SMS from OP bank sometime in the month of April ,2009 offering a scheme to switch over  whereby the interest is reduced he visited Ops local branch at Begumpet and then he was appraised by one of the Bank officials of the OP about the said new scheme and that he was constrained to pay additional sum of Rs.20,603/- towards the so called switch  charges. He did not establish with any convincing material that he was constrained to pay the said amount. Had the said scheme was not acceptable to him, he should have informed the bank officials then and there itself that he is not interested in the new scheme.  Having opted to switch over from present interest scheme to adjustable ROI by executing Ex. B4 the complainant is estopped from raising such an objection subsequently.    He contended that bank officials promised that the amount so collected would thereafter be credited to his loan account but absolutely there is no clinching evidence or circumstances in his favour in the said context on the record. He further alleged that he was asked to sign blank and unfilled amendatory agreement and thereafter Ex. B4 was designed so as to suit the circumstances of the OP bank. Admittedly the complainant is a literate person and he should have refused to sign on  blank proforma of Ex. B4  but he did not do so. Even he did not address any letter to higher officials of OP bank that his signature on such a blank proforma was taken by the officials of the OP bank nor he gave any complaint to the police in the said context. He did not issue any legal notice immediately after the alleged obtaining of his signature on blank proforma.  The subsequent conduct on the part of complainant in maintaining silence in the said context till complaint is filed improbablizes his plea aforesaid. Therefore, his allegation that he was under no obligation to pay such an amount of Rs.20,603/- towards switch over charges could not be appreciated in his favour. The order of the District Forum in the said context is not sustainable for the above reasons and appeal is liable to be allowed setting aside the impugned order wherein Ops 1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs.20,603/- with interest @ 12% pa from 09.04.2009 till payment so also costs of Rs.2,000/-.

10.        In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout.

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                    DATED  : 28.12.2012.