D.O.F                  01.03.2022

                                                                                                                  D.O.D                 24.02.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUDUKKOTTAI

BEFORE:

                 Thiru. K. Mohandoss, B.Sc., B.L.,                                                                   PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. S. Sugunadevi, M.A., M.L.,                                                                    MEMBER 1

                 Thiru. A. Alagesan B.E., E.P.G.D.M.,                                                             MEMBER 2

CC.  14 / 2022

DATED THIS THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY ’2023

Mr. Ponuraman,

S/ O Neelamegam,

South Street,

Thachankurunchi,

Gantharvakottai Taluk,

Pudukkottai District                                                                                                … Complainant

Versus

The Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank,

Near Ramanathan Hospital,

Thanjavur                                                                                                                   … Opposite Party

Counsel for the Complainant: Thiru. Pon Gajendran, Advocate

Counsel for the First Opposite Party: Thiru. R. Lourdu Xavier, Advocate

This case was heard on various dates and finally on 10.02.2023. The opposite party / ICICI Bank, Thanjavur filed the written version on 07.07.2022. Proof of affidavit was filed by the complainant side on 25.08.2022 and the proof of affidavit of the opposite party was filed on 20.10.2022. The written argument of the complainant was filed on 23.12.2022 and the oral argument was done on 10.02.2023. The opposite party filed their written argument on 10.02.2023 and filed a memo to treat the written arguments as their oral arguments. The commission has decided to pronounce the order based on the material records available and on merits today 24.02.2023.        

PRONOUNCED BY Thiru A. Alagesan, Member 2

Brief Summary of Complainant side:

1. The complainant Mr. Ponuraman S/O Neelamegam is currently residing in South Street, Thachankurunchi, Gantharvakottai, Pudukkottai District. The complainant got a two-wheeler loan from the opposite party /ICICI Bank, Thanjavur for Rs. 61,700/- with an Equated Monthly Instalment (EMI) of Rs. 3262/- per month and the tenure of the loan was 24 months. The loan account number is LTTRI00038606776, and it was sanctioned on 22.02.2019. The EMI starts from 10.04.2019 and the last EMI was on 10.03.2021.

2. Due to the Government Order given by both Central and the State Government during the COVID19 pandemic period, for the months from April 2020 till August 2020, the EMI which falls on these months were not collected by the opposite party. When the complainant tried to give the EMI for two months, the opposite party did not accept the payment of the same.

3. The complainant has paid the EMI for these five months on 12.04.2021, 19.05.2021, 12.07.2021, 03.07.2021 and 10.08.2021. Accordingly, the complainant has paid all the 24 EMIs for the loan and asked for the NOC certificate to the opposite party during the month of September 2022. The opposite party mentioned that the complainant needs to pay the outstanding balance amount in his loan account of Rs. 13,000/- and after receiving the same they can give the NOC for the loan. When the complainant mentioned that he has paid all the dues for his loan account and asked for the NOC again, they rejected his claim.

4. The complainant receiving SMS in my mobile continuously which mentioned that there was outstanding amount of Rs. 9413/- in his account and asked him to pay the outstanding amount immediately. The complainant has a legal notice to the opposite party on 27.09.2021 asking for the NOC as well as the compensation for the deficiency of service by the opposite party to the complainant. The opposite party did not respond to the advocate notice sent by the complainant.

5. Hence this complaint was filed before this honourable commission and prayed this commission to order i) the opposite party to provide NOC for the loan account number LTTRI00038606776 ii) the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service as well as the mental agony and mental worries caused due to that iii) the opposite party to pay the litigation expenses to the complainant iv) any other remedy this honourable commission may decide suitable to be given to the complainant.              

6. Ex. A1 to Ex. A3 were marked by the complainant as part of the proof of affidavit stage to substantiate their case. Ex. A1 is about the Bank Statement for the loan account no LTTRI00038606776, Ex. A2 is about the Advocate notice dated 27.09.2021 to the opposite party and Ex. A3 is about the Acknowledgement Card for the advocate notice.

  Brief Summary of the Opposite party side:

7. The first opposite party in this case is the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Thanjavur. This opposite party humbly submits that the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein are denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. At the outset it is submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is unsustainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine as against this opposite party.

8. It is true that the complainant has taken the two-wheeler loan from this opposite party and the loan account number is LTTRI00038606776. The EMI for the loan was Rs. 3262/- and the tenure for the loan is 24 months which starts from 20.04.2019 to 10.03.2021.

9. The allegation mentioned by the complainant that during the COVID19 pandemic period from April 2020 till August 2020, the opposite party did not collect the EMI based on the direction given by the Central and the State Government was false. The allegation that the complainant has tried to pay for two EMIs during that time and the opposite party refused to accept the same is also false.     

10. The other allegations that the payment for these five EMI during the pandemic period was paid on 12.04.2021, 19.05.2021, 12.07.2021, 03.07.2021 and 20.08.2021 and the complainant has asked for the NOC for the loan and this opposite party mentioned that Rs. 13,000/- needs to be paid in order to get the NOC for the loan, and thereafter the complainant received frequent SMS asked him to pay Rs. 9413/- for the loan and this act from the opposite party cased the complainant severe mental agony were all false.

11. Infact, this opposite party given loan to the complainant for Rs. 61,700/- with an EMI of Rs. 3,262/- and this loan amount needs to be paid with 24 instalments. Due to the COVID19 pandemic, the complainant has asked for the loan moratorium for the period from April 2020 till August 2020 and as per the directions given by the RBI, this opposite party has given the same. As per the direction given by RBI on how to treat the loan moratorium, this five months period along with the accumulated interest which was equal to two months EMI needs to be collected and the tenure of the loan was raised from 24 to 31 months and was communicated to the complainant.

12. The complainant has paid only 23 EMIs so far and the outstanding amount in the loan account of the complainant was Rs, 12,353/- which includes EMI amount of Rs. 7485/-, bounce charges of Rs. 2,832/-, overdue charges of Rs. 2,036/- as on 21.06.2022. If the complainant pays the outstanding loan amount, this opposite party immediately give the NOC certificate for the loan.

13. The relationship between the complainant as well as the opposite party is only loanee and the loaner alone and this complainant is not a consumer for this opposite party as defined in the section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act and also this complaint is not associated with section 2(6) of the Consumer Protection Act.

14. This complainant has filed this complaint by giving false information and not eligible to get any compensation. Without completing his payment for the loan account, he falsely claimed that he paid the entire loan amount. This opposite party directly given proper explanation to the complainant for the advocate notice given to them and did not create any mental agony to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service to the complainant and not liable to pay any compensation for the same.     

15. This opposite party has prayed this commission to dismiss the complaint with cost. Ex. B1 was marked by this opposite party as part of their proof of affidavit stage to substantiate their case. Ex. B1 is about the Loan account statement for LTTRI00038606776.         

With respect to this complaint, the commission must give attention to the following point.

1. Whether any deficiency of services by the opposite party to the complainant and if so, what relief he is entitled to?  

16. This commission has gone through the documents Ex. A1 to Ex. A3, Ex. B1, complaint, proof of affidavit documents of the complainant and the opposite party, written arguments and oral arguments of the complainant side as well as the opposite party side. This commission also did a research on the direction given by honourable Supreme Court of India, RBI as well as the stand of the Central and the State Governments related to the loan moratorium given during the COVID19 pandemic.

17. Ex. A1/ Bank Statement for the loan account number LTTRI00038606776, contains the EMI schedule for 24 months from 10.04.2019 to 10.03.2019 and the statement perspective there is no information present there with respect to the details for the year 2020. It is having the statements related to the year 2019 and year 2021. It is not possible to interpret based on the information available from this statement provided by the complainant.    

18. Ex. B1 / Loan account statement for LTTRI00038606776 is having the complete details for all the years. On detailed study of this loan account statement, the repayment mode for the loan is only ECS transaction. For the loan moratorium period from April 2020 to August 2020, there was no EMI deduction in the complainant’s loan account. There were three cheque bounce charges of Rs. 472/- during these loan moratorium period which was waived off completely. There were also additional interest charges of Rs.43/- for the 15^th EMI as well as Rs. 46/- for the 17^th EMI which falls during the loan moratorium period was also waived on 21.03.2021.

19. The total tenure of the loan was extended from 24 to 31 and we can only see the interest was charged for the loan outstanding loan amount during the loan moratorium period and eventually the complainant has to pay these five EMIs along with the interest accrued for the loan outstanding amount during the loan moratorium period. There are no interest-on-interest charges, compound interest charges as well as penal interest charges charged for this loan account for the EMI deferred due to the loan moratorium period from April 2020 to August 2020.

20. On detailed research done by this commission about how the loan moratorium was given to the customers of the banks, it is an option given to the customers who wanted loan moratorium due to the impact faced by the COVID19. Those who wanted the loan moratorium need to opt for the same and for the rest of the customers EMI was detected as per the standing instructions given by the customers. Hence the claim by the complainant that the opposite party did not collect the EMI for the loan during the loan moratorium period was not correct. It is the option excised by the complainant only and he has agreed for the risk of interest payment associated with the loan moratorium while exercising the option itself.    

21. Also, for the complainant, the loan amount was detected via the ECS transactions which is event from Ex. B1 and hence his allegation that he tried to pay the EMI for two months is not logical and there is no material evidence present by the complainant to substantiate his claim.  

22. As per RBI direction on 23^rd May 2020, RBI/2019-20/244 DOR.No.BP.BC.71/21.04.048/2019-20 it is clearly indicated that  “In view of the extension of lockdown and continuing disruption on account of COVID-19, all commercial banks (including regional rural banks, small finance banks and local area banks), cooperative banks, All-India Financial Institutions, and Non-banking Financial Companies (including housing finance companies) (“lending institutions”) are permitted to extend the moratorium by another three months i.e. from June 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020 on payment of all instalments in respect of term loans (including agricultural term loans, retail and crop loans). Accordingly, the repayment schedule for such loans as also the residual tenor, will be shifted across the board. Interest shall continue to accrue on the outstanding portion of the term loans during the moratorium period”. This opposite party, based on the direction of the RBI, shifted the loan EMIs during the period of April 2020 to August 2020 to the right and charged the interest on the outstanding portion of the term loans during the moratorium period and acted as per the direction of the RBI.

23.  There is no complete interest waiver during the loan moratorium period announced from March 2020 to August 2020. In support of this point, we can refer the honourable Supreme Court of India judgment on 21.03.2021, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 476 OF 2020 Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association (Regd.) …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents which clearly directed that “Para 32… i) total waiver of interest during the moratorium period ii) to extend the period of moratorium … and above the relief packages already offered stand dismissed. Connected IAs stand disposed of. However, it is directed that there shall not any charge of interest on interest/ compound interest / penal interest for the period during the moratorium and any amount already recovered under the same head, namely, interest on interest/ penal interest/ compound interest shall be refunded to the concerned borrowers and to be given credit / adjusted in the next instalment of the loan account. …”            

24. From Ex. B1, it is clear that the opposite party did not charge any interest in interest/ penal interest/ compound interest during the loan moratorium period and only charged the interest on the outstanding portion of the loan as per the direction given by the RBI to the banks which leads to extension of the tenure of the loan. Their act of extending the loan tenure is only due to the pending loan EMIs due to the loan moratorium period as well as the interest accrued on the outstanding portion of the loan during that period. At the time when the customer has opted for the loan moratorium, he has accepted the risk of these accrued interest on the loan outstanding amount during the loan moratorium and hence cannot deny this payment now.

25. Hence the complainant must pay the outstanding loan amount in his loan account number LTTRI00038606776 and only after payment of the same, he can ask for the NOC for his loan account. There is no deficiency of service by the opposite party/ ICICI Bank, Thanjavur to the complainant in this case.  As a result, this complaint is dismissed with no cost.                                         

ORDERS RENDERED BY

Thiru A. Alagesan, Member 2:

FOR CONSIDERATION:

(Sd******)                                                 (Sd******)                                                   (Sd*******)

MEMBER 2:                                                MEMBER 1:                                                  PRESIDENT: 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

The above order, manually typewritten in the laptop by Member II and corrections carried out by Member II and pronounced in open court by the Commission on 24.02.2023  

(Sd*******)                                                 (Sd******)                                                           (Sd******)

MEMBER 2:                                                  MEMBER 1:                                                          PRESIDENT: