Date of Filing:15.10.2007<br /> Date of Order:20.11.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2097 OF 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> V. Palani<br /> S/o. M. Venkateshan<br /> R/at No. 37, 4th B Cross<br /> Magadi Road, Bangalore 560 023 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The ICICI Bank Ltd.<br /> Mytree Centre<br /> No. 4/10, Hosur Road<br /> Bommanahalli, Bangalore 560 068 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> The facts of the case are that complainant has taken vehicle loan from the opposite party. The loan was sanctioned at the interest rate of 7.53 % p.a. and EMI was fixed at Rs. 5,878/-. This loan was sanctioned on 21.06.2005. The opposite party bank offered overdraft facility in the month of April 2006. An amount of Rs. 6,945/- was charged to avail this overdraft facility. The process fee of Rs. 1,250/- was paid on 21.04.2006. The complainant has not used over draft facility. In the event of non-payment of EMIs the amount available in overdraft will be transferred to car loan account. The complainant was called by opposite party bank for not making payment for 5 EMIs. Vehicle was seized under seizure letter dated 02.12.2006. On payment of Rs. 11,227/- vehicle was released to complainant. It is revealed that the interest for second loan charged at 14.5% p.a. Opposite party did not disclose interest rate for used car. Opposite party bank has played fraud and caused unnecessary troubles. Opposite party has failed to render services as promised. Car was forcibly taken from the complainant on 03.12.2006. Complainant was deprived of vehicle for 3 months. Complainant is compelled to pay interest double the rate. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to restore the rate of interest of the car loan at 7.53% as was agreed and prayed for grant of damages at Rs. 2,00,000/-.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party has put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed. It is submitted in the defence version that complaint is misconceived, false and frivolous. The contentions of the complainant are denied. The complaint is not maintainable. Rate of interest cannot be changed from agreed one. Complainant has executed the agreement to repay the loan at the rate 14.5%. The complainant cannot take benefit of his own mistakes. He cannot be so negligent in repaying the loan. For all reasons stated above the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidences are filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?”<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. As per the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant had taken car loan from the opposite party in the year 2005 and the rate of interest agreed was 7.53% p.a. The EMI was at Rs. 5,878/- p.m. for a period of 60 months. As per the submissions the complainant committed default in payment of EMIs. Therefore, the vehicle was seized by the opposite party bank and opposite party had issued letter to borrower / pre-sale notice. As per this letter the complainant was due of Rs. 2,67,423/-. It is also admitted case of the complainant that he has paid amount of Rs. 11,227/- and the vehicle was released in his favour on 3.03.2007. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party bank had financed and sanctioned loan to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that interest charged is 14.5% for the second loan. Therefore, the complainant requested that opposite party may be directed to restore the old rate of interest on the car loan. The opposite party has produced the acknowledgement form. In this form rate of interest is mentioned as 14.5% and the complainant has signed on this form. Therefore, as per the agreement entered into between the parties the rate of interest was shown as 14.5%. The earlier car loan was closed and the bank has sanctioned second loan for used vehicle. Naturally the second loan is having higher rate of interest. The first loan was sanctioned in the year 2005 and the rate of interest was agreed was 7.53% and the second loan was sanctioned in the year 2007 and for that loan the agreed rate of interest was 14.5%. The complainant being a businessman by knowing the terms and conditions of the loan agreement he has signed on the acknowledgement form. He cannot now dispute the rate of interest. Charging of interest on the loan depends upon the type of loan and repayment schedule, the year and date of sanction of loan, the complainant cannot dictate terms that bank should charge particular rate of interest. Charging of interest on the loan as per the agreement and as per the RBI guidelines cannot be treated as deficiency in service. The Consumer Fora cannot interfere in the banking financial administration. The prayer of the complainant that opposite party should be directed to restore the old rate of interest is not maintainable. Such kind of relief cannot be asked before the Consumer Fora. If the complainant has got any grievance against the bank he will be free to approach banking Ombudsman and put forth his grievance there. The banking Ombudsman constituted as per the RBI guidelines will look into the complaint and grievance of the customers and set right the things. Therefore, taking any view of the matter, the present complaint is not maintainable. The relief sought by the complainant for restoration of the old rate of interest is not maintainable here. The complainant is the customer of the opposite party bank, he has taken car loan and on payment of EMIs, still there is long way to go. Both the parties shall have to maintain harmonious and good relationship. If at all the complainant has got any grievances, those grievances can be addressed to the bank and on mutual understanding and negotiation problems can be solved. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> CV<br />