BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No.130/2007 Filed on 21/05/2007
Dated: 16..02..2009
Complainant: Rajin Lawrence, TC 11/729 Manchandivila Lane, Kowdiar – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite party:
Manager, ICICI Bank (Housing Finance Ltd) Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had availed a housing loan of Rs.4,60,000/- from the opposite party by pledging original property documents, and that the said loan was sanctioned on a floating interest rate. EMI was of Rs. 6,468/- which was collecting from the complainant since March 2003 onwards. And due to unforeseen circumstances complainant was forced to resign her job and since there was no steady income, complainant decided to close the house loan with opposite party. Opposite party had collected Rs.2,15,070/- from the complainant as interest and penal charges for a loan amount of Rs. 4,60,000/-. Hence this complaint to get refund of Rs.70,000/- overcharged from the complainant, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and to get back prior property document from the opposite party.
2. Opposite party did not appear in spite of service of notice. Hence opposite party remains ex-parte. No version filed.
3. The points that arise for consideration are: Whether opposite party has collected excess interest from the complainant? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? Reliefs and costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P9. Opposite party did not file version, affidavit or any documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii) : It has been the case of the complainant that complainant had availed a housing loan of Rs.4,60,000/- for a period of 120 months from the opposite party on 18/1/2003, by pledging property documents of her husband; that the amount of each EMI was Rs.6,468/-, that due to unforeseen circumstances, the complainant was forced to resign her job in August 2005 and that since there was no steady income, complainant closed the loan in January 2007. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite party had collected extra charge on part prepayment from the complainant, and that the original property document had been damaged by the opposite party; while the prior property document had not returned to the complainant. Ext.P7 is the loan sanction letter dated 18/1/2003 issued by the opposite party. As per Ext.P7, loan sanctioned amount is Rs.4,60,000/-, loan tenor is 120 months, ICICI home prime lending rate on the date of sanction is 10.25%, adjustable rate of interest is such that ICICI Home prime lending rate as publicly notified from time to time plus margin 1.25%, the amount of each EMI is Rs.6,468/- per month, administrative charge is Rs.2,300/-, maximum loan to value ratio is 45% of valuation of property, security is mortgage of the property, fees on part prepayment is 0% on amount prepaid. It is stated in Ext.P7 that the other terms and conditions detailed overleaf also will be applicable to the facility. It is pertinent to note that complainant had furnished only special conditions and not the other terms and conditions. Ext.P9 is the repayment schedule as on 29/9/2006 issued by the opposite party in connection with agreement No.LBTVM00000350478. On a perusal of Ext.P9, it is found that from 7/3/2003 to 7/1/2004, opposite party had charged interest at the rate of 11.5% from the complainant, from 7/2/2004 to 7/1/2005 opposite party had charged 11% , from 7/2/2005 to 7/7/2005, 11.5% interest was charged and from 7/8/2005 to 7/2/2006, the rate of interest was 12%. On 37th installment on 7/2/2006, an amount of Rs.2,43,058/- is seen remitted as installment amount which is seen adjusted against the principal amount of Rs.3,70,618/- as on 7/2/2006 and that no rate of interest is seen charged on that amount, and thereafter the balance principal amount was shown as Rs.1,27,500/-. From 7/3/2006 to 7/7/2006 the interest rate was 12.50%, from 7/8/2006 to the last installment the rate of interest was 13.50%. It is pertinent to note that as per the loan sanction letter dated 18/1/2003 (Ext.P7) complainant had agreed for adjustable rate of interest and complainant is seen accepted the said sanction letter with other terms and conditions applicable to the facility by signing and returning the acceptance copy of the sanction letter. As per Ext.P7 opposite party's Prime Lending rate would vary from time to time to which a margin of 1.25% would add to ensure adjustable rate of interest. Submission by the complainant is that complainant had closed the said loan on 5/1/2007. Ext.P8 is the statement of account as on 5/1/2007 issued by opposite party. As per Ext.P8, on 5/1/2007 the Prime Lending rate was 12.75% and variance was 1.25%, thereby adjustable rate was 14%. Complainant had challenged the rate of interest of 14%. On a perusal of Ext.P8 opposite party had collected overdue charges and cheque bouncing charges. Complainant never produced periodical payment receipts to show that complainant had remitted the EMIs without default or delay. On perusal of Ext.P8, there were dues for some installments, which resulted in overdue charges, along with cheque bouncing charges. On going through Exts.P7 to P9 opposite party has collected interest as per Ext.P7 sanction letter as accepted by the complainant. Hence we came to the conclusion that opposite party had never collected excess interest from the complainant with respect to loan of Rs.4,60,000/-. Next point requiring consideration is whether opposite party has returned the property document to the complainant on closure of the loan. Complainant's submission is that original property document was damaged by the opposite party and prior property document was not returned. Ext.P1 is the copy of the letter issued by the complainant and addressed to the General Manager, Banking Ombudsman. Ext.P2(a) is the copy of E-mail dated 7/2/2007 to one Smt. Pushpa, Customer Service Manager, ICICI Bank, asking for complainant's title deed. Prior to the query, opposite party informed the complainant that opposite party's branch official has clarified and confirmed that opposite party had received the title deed. Ext.P2(b) is the copy of amount dated 20/1/2007 addressed to opposite party wherein complainant admitted that she had collected just one document in damaged state, while she had not received the prior document though opposite party promised to give it on 17/1/2007. Opposite party did not contest the case. No version filed. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite party. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant remains uncontroverted. It is pertinent to point out that a loanee deposits the property document with opposite party as it is the safest place. Non-return of the said document even after the closure of the loan would amount to deficiency in service. Without prior document of the property mortgaged, complainant's property right will be affected, which would reduce the bargaining power of the complainant thereby the value of the said property would come down. Considering the totality of the circumstances we think justice will be well met if complainant is awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation along with a cost of RS.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). The said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 18% if not paid within two months from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of February, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.130/2007 APPENDIX Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Rajin Lawrence Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of letter dated 28/1/2007 issued to the opposite party from complainant P2(a) Copy of G-mail dated Feb.7, 2007 and reply dated 6/2/2007 P2(b) " dated 20/1/2007 P3(a) Payment receipt dated 5/1/2007, 25/10/2006
P3(b) Payment receipt dated 25/10/2006, 27/1/2006
P4 : Copy of MSN-Hotmail dated 26/2/2007 from opp. Party to the complainant. P5 : Phoptocopy of calculator for variable rate scheme as on 7/2/2006 with principal outst-120618 P6 : Copy of calculator for variable rate scheme as on 7/2/2006 with principal outst 370618 P7 : Copy of letter dated 18/1/2003 issued to the complainant from opposite party. P8 (8 pages) Copy of account statement from 16/8/2002 to 5/1/2007 from opp. Party
P9 : Copy of repayment schedule dated 29/9/2006 produced by opp. Party from 31/1/2003 to 7/1/2008.
Opposite party's witness : NIL Opposite party's documents : NIL
PRESIDENT ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No.130/2007 Filed on 21/05/2007
Dated: 16..02..2009
Complainant: Rajin Lawrence, TC 11/729 Manchandivila Lane, Kowdiar – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite party:
Manager, ICICI Bank (Housing Finance Ltd) Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had availed a housing loan of Rs.4,60,000/- from the opposite party by pledging original property documents, and that the said loan was sanctioned on a floating interest rate. EMI was of Rs. 6,468/- which was collecting from the complainant since March 2003 onwards. And due to unforeseen circumstances complainant was forced to resign her job and since there was no steady income, complainant decided to close the house loan with opposite party. Opposite party had collected Rs.2,15,070/- from the complainant as interest and penal charges for a loan amount of Rs. 4,60,000/-. Hence this complaint to get refund of Rs.70,000/- overcharged from the complainant, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and to get back prior property document from the opposite party.
2. Opposite party did not appear in spite of service of notice. Hence opposite party remains ex-parte. No version filed.
3. The points that arise for consideration are: Whether opposite party has collected excess interest from the complainant? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? Reliefs and costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P9. Opposite party did not file version, affidavit or any documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii) : It has been the case of the complainant that complainant had availed a housing loan of Rs.4,60,000/- for a period of 120 months from the opposite party on 18/1/2003, by pledging property documents of her husband; that the amount of each EMI was Rs.6,468/-, that due to unforeseen circumstances, the complainant was forced to resign her job in August 2005 and that since there was no steady income, complainant closed the loan in January 2007. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite party had collected extra charge on part prepayment from the complainant, and that the original property document had been damaged by the opposite party; while the prior property document had not returned to the complainant. Ext.P7 is the loan sanction letter dated 18/1/2003 issued by the opposite party. As per Ext.P7, loan sanctioned amount is Rs.4,60,000/-, loan tenor is 120 months, ICICI home prime lending rate on the date of sanction is 10.25%, adjustable rate of interest is such that ICICI Home prime lending rate as publicly notified from time to time plus margin 1.25%, the amount of each EMI is Rs.6,468/- per month, administrative charge is Rs.2,300/-, maximum loan to value ratio is 45% of valuation of property, security is mortgage of the property, fees on part prepayment is 0% on amount prepaid. It is stated in Ext.P7 that the other terms and conditions detailed overleaf also will be applicable to the facility. It is pertinent to note that complainant had furnished only special conditions and not the other terms and conditions. Ext.P9 is the repayment schedule as on 29/9/2006 issued by the opposite party in connection with agreement No.LBTVM00000350478. On a perusal of Ext.P9, it is found that from 7/3/2003 to 7/1/2004, opposite party had charged interest at the rate of 11.5% from the complainant, from 7/2/2004 to 7/1/2005 opposite party had charged 11% , from 7/2/2005 to 7/7/2005, 11.5% interest was charged and from 7/8/2005 to 7/2/2006, the rate of interest was 12%. On 37th installment on 7/2/2006, an amount of Rs.2,43,058/- is seen remitted as installment amount which is seen adjusted against the principal amount of Rs.3,70,618/- as on 7/2/2006 and that no rate of interest is seen charged on that amount, and thereafter the balance principal amount was shown as Rs.1,27,500/-. From 7/3/2006 to 7/7/2006 the interest rate was 12.50%, from 7/8/2006 to the last installment the rate of interest was 13.50%. It is pertinent to note that as per the loan sanction letter dated 18/1/2003 (Ext.P7) complainant had agreed for adjustable rate of interest and complainant is seen accepted the said sanction letter with other terms and conditions applicable to the facility by signing and returning the acceptance copy of the sanction letter. As per Ext.P7 opposite party's Prime Lending rate would vary from time to time to which a margin of 1.25% would add to ensure adjustable rate of interest. Submission by the complainant is that complainant had closed the said loan on 5/1/2007. Ext.P8 is the statement of account as on 5/1/2007 issued by opposite party. As per Ext.P8, on 5/1/2007 the Prime Lending rate was 12.75% and variance was 1.25%, thereby adjustable rate was 14%. Complainant had challenged the rate of interest of 14%. On a perusal of Ext.P8 opposite party had collected overdue charges and cheque bouncing charges. Complainant never produced periodical payment receipts to show that complainant had remitted the EMIs without default or delay. On perusal of Ext.P8, there were dues for some installments, which resulted in overdue charges, along with cheque bouncing charges. On going through Exts.P7 to P9 opposite party has collected interest as per Ext.P7 sanction letter as accepted by the complainant. Hence we came to the conclusion that opposite party had never collected excess interest from the complainant with respect to loan of Rs.4,60,000/-. Next point requiring consideration is whether opposite party has returned the property document to the complainant on closure of the loan. Complainant's submission is that original property document was damaged by the opposite party and prior property document was not returned. Ext.P1 is the copy of the letter issued by the complainant and addressed to the General Manager, Banking Ombudsman. Ext.P2(a) is the copy of E-mail dated 7/2/2007 to one Smt. Pushpa, Customer Service Manager, ICICI Bank, asking for complainant's title deed. Prior to the query, opposite party informed the complainant that opposite party's branch official has clarified and confirmed that opposite party had received the title deed. Ext.P2(b) is the copy of amount dated 20/1/2007 addressed to opposite party wherein complainant admitted that she had collected just one document in damaged state, while she had not received the prior document though opposite party promised to give it on 17/1/2007. Opposite party did not contest the case. No version filed. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite party. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant remains uncontroverted. It is pertinent to point out that a loanee deposits the property document with opposite party as it is the safest place. Non-return of the said document even after the closure of the loan would amount to deficiency in service. Without prior document of the property mortgaged, complainant's property right will be affected, which would reduce the bargaining power of the complainant thereby the value of the said property would come down. Considering the totality of the circumstances we think justice will be well met if complainant is awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation along with a cost of RS.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). The said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 18% if not paid within two months from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of February, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.130/2007 APPENDIX Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Rajin Lawrence Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of letter dated 28/1/2007 issued to the opposite party from complainant P2(a) Copy of G-mail dated Feb.7, 2007 and reply dated 6/2/2007 P2(b) " dated 20/1/2007 P3(a) Payment receipt dated 5/1/2007, 25/10/2006
P3(b) Payment receipt dated 25/10/2006, 27/1/2006
P4 : Copy of MSN-Hotmail dated 26/2/2007 from opp. Party to the complainant. P5 : Phoptocopy of calculator for variable rate scheme as on 7/2/2006 with principal outst-120618 P6 : Copy of calculator for variable rate scheme as on 7/2/2006 with principal outst 370618 P7 : Copy of letter dated 18/1/2003 issued to the complainant from opposite party. P8 (8 pages) Copy of account statement from 16/8/2002 to 5/1/2007 from opp. Party
P9 : Copy of repayment schedule dated 29/9/2006 produced by opp. Party from 31/1/2003 to 7/1/2008.
Opposite party's witness : NIL Opposite party's documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | |
