DATE OF FILING : 08-08-2013. DATE OF S/R : 11-09-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-04-2014. Ananga Kumar Pradhan, son of late Gajendranath Pradhan, residing at flat no. 202, ¾, Mahendra Bagchi Road, P.O. & P.S. Bally, District – Howrah, PIN – 711201.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. The Chief Manager, ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., Kolkata Branch, 22, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700 001. 2. The Chief Manager, ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., Regional Office Hall and Anderson Building, 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700 016. 3. The Chief Manager, ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., registered office ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai – 400051. 4. Head Complaints Department, ICICI Bank Ltd., ICI CI Bank Phone Banking Centre, ICICI Bank Tower, 7th floor, Survey no. 116/27, Plot no. 12, Nanakramguda, Sarillingampolly, Hyderabad – 500032. --------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The instant case was filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to deduct E.M.I. as per fixed rate against application no. 757190 dated 12-01-2004 wrongly clubbed with the principal loan amount by the o.ps. and a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs together with other relief/s against home loan amounting to Rs. 3,42,000/- to the complainant in spite of converting the floating interest as per schedule ‘B’ of the agreement from 9.75% to 7.75%, arbitrarily compelled the complainant to be paid as EMI as usual. 2. The o.ps. i.e. financial institution in their written version contended interalia that the complainant opted for conversion for 7.75% adjustable/floating rate of interest and the same was recorded which was effective from January, 2004 and complainant is well aware of the interest rate on repayment would change based on the changes in R.P.L.R. announced by the banker namely ICICI from time to time. 3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? DECISION WITH REASONS : 4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. This is a case where the complainant took a home loan of Rs. 3,42,000/- at floating interest @ 9.75% payable in 180 installments with fixed EMI of Rs. 3,623/- per month as per agreement dated 28-06-2002. Subsequently as per opportunity given by the o.ps. to the petitioner he took the same and paid Rs. 1,666/- through cheque no. 173050 dated 12-01-2004 in favour of o.p. no. 1 as switching free for converting the rate of interest into fixed rate and informed the complainant on the dated 12-01-2004 as marked ‘B’ of the Annexures of the o.ps. where it is categorically stated that the new fixed interest will @ Rs. 7.75% and the revised period of EMI was calculated and the balance loan amount to be paid in 141 installments from January, 2004 onwards. 5. Surprisingly during repaying period one letter being no. 0023228 dated 08-07-2011 sent by the o.ps. bank showed that till 147 EMIs remain to be paid in order to clear off the balance amount which was unexpected and uncalled for and beyond the scope and purview of the agreed terms and conditions. In spite of the facts that the complainant already paid 161 EMIs. 6. Moreover, during scrutiny of the accounts statement it is noticed that the complainant paid more or less amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the o.ps. in his loan account no. LB CL 00000360742 and thereby EMI was deducted against account no. 628001027974 of the complainant. 7. Most unfortunate conduct of the o.ps. ( financial institution ) is further revealed that altogether from 07-05-2002 to 07-01-2014 the complainant paid Rs. 4,67,367/- though 129 EMIs, with EMIs arbitrarily deducted Rs. 3,623/- which is contrary to the agreement executed dated 12-01-2004 (reference Annexure ‘B’ no. 2970990 ). 8. In the instant case the complainant was totally in dark with respect of benefit of switching over from floating rate to fixed rate. When the complainant already availed the opportunity of switching over in floating rate to fixed rate by paying fees Rs. 1663/- through cheque dated 12-01-2004 duly accepted by the o.p. as per record, there was no necessity to claim the old EMIs/ per month @ Rs. 3,623/-. There cannot be any better instance of unfair trade practice than this case especially when the complainant almost paid the EMIs diligently. 9. We have no hesitation in our mind that the complainant was placed in tremendous mental pressure for the arbitrary conduct of the o.ps. It is, therefore, a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 279 of 2013 ( HDF 279 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.ps. The O.Ps. jointly and / or severally be directed to deduct 141 EMIs @ Rs. 3,623/- per month from Feb’04 at a fixed rate of interest @ 7.75% as per agreement dated 12-01-2004 of the reschedule amount of loan which was arbitrarily clubbed with the principal loan amount and adjusted the same with the paid amount within 45 days of the this order. The complainant is further directed to submit the account of such fixed rate before the o.p. no. 1 within 30 days from the date of this order. The O.Ps jointly and/or severally do pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation costs. No order as to compensation. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( P. K. Chatterjee ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
