By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant filed a complaint against this Opposite Party earlier which was No. CC 88/08. The Complainant was directed to pay Rs.1,57,000/- along with interest and cost. The Opposite Party take vengeance upon the Complainant being the amount was ordered to pay to the Complainant and the same was also deposited. The Opposite Party is charging exorbitant interest and demanding unauthorised and illegal huge amount. The Opposite Party sent two notices demanding huge amount from the Complainant and the amount demanded by the Opposite Party is not based on reasons and justification. In notice No. RLAD 50851 the instalments due demanded is Rs.76,763/- up to 7/10 including interest and EMI. In the notice RLAD No. 508552 the amount demanded including principle and interest up to 7/10 is Rs.28,063/-. The rate of interest calculated by the Opposite Party is in correct. Instead as a vengeance steps the Opposite Parties are demanding exorbitant sum towards EMI and interest.

3. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to withdraw the notices dated 10.7.2010 No.RLAD 50851 and 50852. The Opposite Party may be restrained from taking any action in pursuance of the notices sent along with the cost and compensation.

4. The Opposite Parties filed version the complaint filed is not maintainable. The terms of loan agreement make the endorsement of the Complainants that if any default in repayment effected the Opposite Party can take back the possession of assets with or without notices and the property kept in security can be sold either in public or private auction. The complaint is filed with ulterior motives. The claim of the Complainants for an order of the stay is unreasonable. The repayment of the loan amount was not timely done. The EMI's were remitted out of time and huge amount is still due from the Complainant. Rs. 73,164/- is due at the time of filing the version as the 1^st loan account and Rs.25,148/- is in due in the 2^nd loan account. The Petitioner already agreed in the terms of agreement that the Opposite Party can proceed against the Complainant under the surface act. The demand of the Complainant to recall the notice sent is not based on reasons up to 10.07.2010. The liability of instalments due of the Complainant in the 1^st loan is 5,74,817/- in the 2^nd loan liability is 1,85,942/-. The Opposite Party sent the notices to the complainant to foreclose the outstanding liability. The Complainant breached the terms of agreement which makes the Opposite Party to foreclose the loan. The Complainant suppressed this facts and the complaint filed is not having any justification. The complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the Opposite Party.

5. Points in consideration are:

1. Is there any deficiency in service in the issuance of the notice to the Complainant?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party, Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4 are the documents produced. The oral testimony of the Complainant and Opposite Parties are also considered in this case.

7. The Opposite Party sent loan recall notices which is the Ext.A1 series. The complaint

and the order of this Forum in CC No.88/08 are the other documents produced. The materials on records shows that the Complainant were in liability for the remittance of the instalments when the notice were sent by the Opposite Party. The statement of accounts also shows that the Complainants were not paying the EMI's without any overdue. In the oral testmony of the Complainant it is also admitted that 7 instalments were due from him and the notice were sent to the Complainant when instalments were due. The Opposite Party demanded from the Complainant through notices for the payment of the instalments that were in due. The other contentions of the Complainants are that the notices sent to the Complainant which are marked as Ext.A1 series are nothing but a vengeance act taken against the Complainant. It cannot be conceived in such a way that the demand of the Opposite Party for instalments due is in consequence of the vengeance act. It is not brought in evidence how much is the excess and exorbitant amount demanded by the Opposite Party from the Complainant contrary to the terms of agreement. The Complainant also admitted that instalments due were remitted by him on receival of the notice. The Opposite Party is entitled to demand from the Complainants instalments and its interest which is considerable basing on the terms of agreement. It is not seen anything to interfere in the demand of the Opposite Party for the monthly instalments.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost and compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th April 2011.

Date of filing:16.08.2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/ Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainants:

PW1. K. P. Alias. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Najmudeen. Manager, M/S ICICI Bank Ltd., Kozhikode.

Exhibits for the Complainants:

A1series. Copy of Loan Recall Notice.

A2. Copy of Order. dt:30.12.2009.

A3. Copy of complaint.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Account Statement from 27.03.2008 to 25.09.2010.

B2. Copy of Account Statement from 27.03.2008 to 25.09.2010.

B3. Copy of Recall Notice. dt:10.07.2010.

B4. Copy of Recall Notice. dt:10.07.2010.