DATE OF FILING                    :     09-12-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      20-01-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     25-11-2014.

1.         Sri Nepal Manjhi,

son of late Kashi Nath Manjhi,

2.         Smt. Anita Manjhi,

wife of Sri Nepal Manjhi,

both are residing at village – Bhattanagar, Paschimpara,

P.O. Bhattanagar, P.S. Liluah,

District –Howrah………………………………………….  COMPLAINANTS.

Versus -

1.         The Manager,

            ICICI Bank Limited,

            ICICI  Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East,

            Mumbai – 400 051.

2.         The Branch Manager,

            ICICI  Bank Ltd.,

            Landmark Building, 4^th floor,

            228A,  A.J.C. Bose Road,

            Kolkata – 700 020.

3.         Vishal Kumar Sahu,

            Debt. Manager,

            ICICI Bank Ltd.,  Land Mark Building ( 4^th floor ),

            228A, A.J.C. Bose Road,

            Kolkata – 700 020.

4.         The Accountant,

            ICICI Bank Ltd., Land Mark Building ( 4^th floor ),

            228A, A.J.C. Bose Road,

            Kolkata – 700 020.

5.         The Branch Manager,

            Bank of India, Liluah Branch,

            P.O. & P.S. Liluah, District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711204…………………………………………….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

• Complainants, Nepal Manjhi & Anita Majhi,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the

C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to settle the dispute regarding outstanding dues of home loan and to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation along  with other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

1. Brief fact of the case is that complainant was sanctioned with a loan amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- towards home loan for which he had to provide a collateral security in respect of the plot of land owned by him. The agreement for such loan was entered by and between the complainant and o.p. nos. 1 to 4 vide agreement dated 10-10-2002. It was also agreed that loan was to be paid in 240 equal monthly installment of Rs. 2,995/- each and the actual amount of disbursement of such loan was Rs. 2,90,236/- in three installments dated 13-11-2002, 03-03-2003 & 13-05-2013 after deducting the processing fees etc. It is further stated by the complainant that he had already paid Rs. 4,16,000/- vide Annexures bank statement provided by o.p. 5, towards his loan a/cbeing no. LBCAL 00000364869. It is alleged by the complainant that although E.M.I. was Rs, 2,995/-, o.p. nos. 1 to 4 even charged Rs. 3,896/- as EMI and complainant also paid that amount. But even then, the men and agents of o.p. nos. 1 to 4 visited complainant’s house with a threatening attitude and asked for a total outstanding amount of Rs. 3,14,920.88 as on 16-01-2014. Legal notices were served by both parties on both sides. Still o.p. nos. 1 to 4 did not supply any clear statement of accounts with respect to above loan account. He also served a copy of such notice upon local police station for proper relief. But no fruitful resultcame out. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.

    

2. Notices were served upon o.ps. All the o.ps. appeared and filed their respective written versions. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.

    

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.  ?

1. Whether the complainants areentitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

    

   DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

    

2. Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. O.p. nos. 1 to 4 have taken a specific plea in their written version vide Para 2(d) that loan was given on the basis of Adjustable Rate of Interest depending on Prime Lending Rates. So the amount of interest shall be increased or decreased. In the same parathey have admitted that loan was required to be repaid in 240 equal monthly installments of Rs. 2,995/- each. So, the amount of interest was fixed by the o.p. nos. 1 to 4 @ Rs. 2,995/-. How they can again take this plea that rate of interest is an adjustable one ? And it is our common knowledge that the organizations like o.p. nos. 1 to 4 are very much irregular in supplying statement of account with respect to the loan account. And in this case, once they have asked for Rs. 2,96,592/-, again they are asking for Rs. 3,00,086/- as outstanding through legal notice. Lastly they have asked for Rs. 3,14,920.88 p. from the complainant vide letter dated 16-01-2014. Complainant might have defaulted in payment but for that o.p. nos. 1 to 4 accepted penalty.O.ps. no. 1 to 4 even admitted that complainant had paid Rs. 3,98,123/- towards installments and Rs. 9,449/- towards pre-Emi, till date vide para 3 of their evidence-on-affidavit. Still, their claim of Rs. 3,14,920.88 remains as outstanding. It is further stated by the o.ps. that as per the demand of the complainants, they supplied the copy of statement of accounts vide their letter dated21-10-2013. However, during pendency of this instant case, o.ps. sent one letter for amicable settlement on 23-06-2014 and the loan account in question of the complainants has been lying as a non-performing assets since 31^st August, 2013. But it is susrprising enough to see that after making the payment of Rs. 3,98,122 + Rs. 9,449/- = Rs. 4,07,572/- in total, how a total claim of Rs. 3,14,922.88 still remains outstanding against loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Complainant had paid last installment on 07-03-02013 amounting to Rs. 3,896/- through proforma o.p. no. 5. And repeatedly he was asking for Bank statement, but o.p. nos. 1 to 4 did not care to supply the same. It is their own admission that complainants were required to pay 240 equal monthly installments ofRs. 2,995/- which means complainants are supposed to pay Rs. 2,995 X 240 = Rs. 6,18,800/- in total. Out of such amount complainants already paid Rs. 4,07,571/-. So, complainants are to pay Rs. 2,11,229/-. And 240 monthly installments means, complainants were allowed to pay upto 2022 or 2023 as the 1^st installment of loan was disbursed on 13-11-2002 by the o.p. nos. 1 to 4. But o.p. nos. 1 to 4 had sent their agents to the complainants’ residence with threatening words and attitude which can never be allowed to be perpetuated. The business of o.p. nos. 1 to 4 is totally depending on the consumer’s like complainants’ satisfaction.They should not have forgotten that. Here in this case o.ps.’ negligent attitude created severe mental and physical harassment for the complainants. So, we are of the candid opinion that o.p. nos. 1 to 4 are deficient in providing service to the complainants. Complainants have no grievance against proforma o.p. no. 5.Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 428  of 2013 ( HDF 428  of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. nos. 1 to 4 and dismissed against proforma o.p. no. 5 without costs.    

      That the  O.P. nos. 1 to 4  are jointly and severally directed to receive only  Rs. 2,11,229/- from  the complainant in equal monthly installments upto the year 2022 to be started within one month from this order. The o.ps. 1 to 4 are further directed not to ask for any extra amount from the complainant with respect to the loan account being no. LBCAL 00000364869 and immediately afte the payment of Rs. 2,11,229/- by the complainants, o.ps. are directed to return the registered sale deed to the complainants which was  kept as mortgage  with the o.ps.   

       That the complainants do get an award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and  Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs totaling Rs. 13,000/- to be paid by the o.p. nos. 1 to 4 within one month from the date of this order i.d., an interest @ 10% per annum shall be charged till actual payment.

      The complainants are 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.

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.