Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

423/2010

Srinivasa Rao Sari Palli - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,ICICI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.T.S.Gopalan

24 May 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 11.11.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 24.05.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.423/2010

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

                                 

1. Srinivasa Rao Sari Palli,

S/o. Mr. S. N. Moorthy,

G-403, THE ATRIUM,

No.22, Kalashetra Road,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.   

 

2. Mrs. Shoba Rao Sari Palli,

W/o. Mr. Srinivasa Rao Sari Palli,

G-403, THE ATRIUM,

No.22, Kalashetra Road,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                    .. Complainants.                                                 

 

                                                                                              ..Versus..

1. The Managing Director,

ICICI Bank Limited,

ICICI Bank Towers,

South Tower, West Wing, 2^nd Floor,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai – 400 051.

 

2. ICICI Bank Limited – Home Loan Division,

Head Home Loans, C/o. Complaints Department,                                                  ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Phone Banking Centre,

5^th Floor Md, Illayas Khan Estate,

Road No.1, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad – 500 034.

 

3. The Nodal Officer,

Office of the Managing Director,

ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers,

South Tower, West Wing, 2^nd Floor,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai – 400 051.

4. ICICI Bank Limited – Branch Banking Division,

Head Branch Banking,

C/o. Complaints Department,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

ICICI Bank Phone Banking Centre,

5^th Floor Md. Illayas Khan Estate,

Road No.1, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad – 500 034.

 

5. The Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

No.2/1, L.B. Road Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainants                 : M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co. &

                                                                  another

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 5 : M/s. S. Namasivayam & 

                                                                  others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to retrieve the complainants’ application, process the same and extend the benefit of reduced interest rate in the home loan account bearing No.LBVJW00000637267 effective 01.02.2010, to reverse the excess interest charged in the account from 01.02.2010, to direct the officials to personally visit the complainants and apologies for the negligence insults rudeness and unprofessional conduct and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and duress with cost to the complainant.

 

 

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainants submit that they had availed a housing loan from the opposite party on the reduced interest rate by payment of conversion charges as per the terms and conditions of the loan.   The complainant submits that during the month of January 2010, the opposite parties bank announced a scheme for reduction of interest rate in the housing loans.  The opposite parties had considered the request of the complainant and sanctioned the reduction rate of interest on payment of conversion charges of Rs.12,156/-.  The complainants submit that the opposite parties had assured that the interest rate will be refixed at the rate of 8.75% p.a. for 2 years which is effective from February 2010.   But to the dismay, the opposite parties’ officials particularly Mr. Ravi Kumar wantonly and negligently has not taken any proper steps for such reduction of interest evenafter payment of the conversion charges and effectively till 15.04.2010.  Hence, the complainants had approached the opposite parties’ officials including Mr. Ravi Kumar for which, the only answer is, it will done shortly and the rate of conversion will be reflected in the computer system.  But there is no progress.  Hence, the complainants issued notice through email after payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.10.2010.  The complainants submit that on 15.04.2010, the opposite parties’ official Mr. Ravi Kumar made a telephone call to the 2^nd complainant and informed that the document submitted by the complainants were misplaced and demanded to fill up and execute a fresh set of papers once again. Without any option, the complainants also submitted the papers.  Even then, Mr. Ravi Kumar the official of the opposite parties has not processed the reduced interest rate to the loan.   The complainants submit that even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties has not taken any steps for reducing the interest rate alleging that it is their discretionary part of sanctioning the loan.   The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 to 5 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 to 5 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 to 5 state that the complainants have filed this complaint with an intension to evade the repayment of the outstanding loan.  The opposite parties 1 to 5 state that the housing loan account is coming under securitized account assigned to Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL).  The opposite parties 1 to 5 state that Rs.25,00,000/- was repayable in 240 EMIs of Rs.19,760/-.  The rate of interest was based on variable ICICI prime lending rate which was 9.75% on the date of the sanction of loan.  The opposite parties 1 to 5 state that sanctioning of housing loan by the opposite parties, ICICI Bank is subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement.   Accordingly, it is the discretion of the opposite parties to retrieve the interest.  The opposite parties 1 to 5 state that even if the interest rate is reduced, the EMI shall be constant and only the period of EMI alone shall be reduced.   The transactions between the complainant and the opposite party is one of contract whereby the complainant has agreed to avail the facilities of the opposite party subject to the conditions that in case of failure to pay for the services availed by him wherein the prescribed period he will be charged interest and penal interest, to ensure that the money is promptly paid.   The allegations that Mr. Arul Anand, the Credit Manager and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Operating Manager checked up with the computer system and found that the loan papers had been securitized and thereafter they informed the 1^st complainant that they could not entertain the said request of reduced rate of interest and suggested that the complainants should fill up a fresh application form and submit the same to the branch are denied as baseless.  The opposite parties 1 to 5 state that in absence of any proof, the claim of mental agony, torture, negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties are denied as false and made with an ulterior motive of making unjust enrichment.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 5 and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainants have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is filed and documents Ex.B1 alone is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 5.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief of retrieval benefits on the reduced interest rate from 01.02.2010 as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and duress with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Admittedly, the complainants availed a housing loan from the opposite party on the reduced interest rate by payment of conversion charges as per the terms and conditions of the loan as per Ex.A1. Further the contention of the complainant is that during the month of January 2010, the opposite parties bank announced a scheme for reduction of interest rate in the housing loans.  The opposite parties had considered the request of the complainant and sanctioned the reduction rate of interest on payment of conversion charges of Rs.12,156/- as per Ex.A2, Statement of Accounts.  Further the contention of the complainants is that the opposite parties had assured that the interest rate will be refixed at the rate of 8.75% p.a. for 2 years which is effective from February 2010.   But to the dismay, the opposite parties’ officials particularly Mr. Ravi Kumar wantonly and negligently has not taken any proper steps for such reduction of interest evenafter payment of conversion charges and effectively till 15.04.2010.  Hence, the complainants had approached the opposite parties’ officials including Mr. Ravi Kumar for which, the only answer is, it will done shortly and the rate of conversion will be reflected in the computer system.  But there is no progress.  Hence, the complainants issued email notice after payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.10.2010 as per Ex.A3.  Further the contention of the complainants is that on 15.04.2010, the opposite parties’ official Mr. Ravi Kumar made a telephone call to the 2^nd complainant and informed that the document submitted by the complainants were misplaced and demanded to fill up and execute a fresh set of papers once again.  Without any option, the complainants also submitted the papers. Even then, Mr. Ravi Kumar the official of the opposite parties has not processed the reduced interest rate to the loan proves that gross negligence of the opposite parties resulting deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the complainants is that even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties has not taken any steps for reducing the interest rate alleging that it is their discretionary part of sanctioning the loan.  But on a careful perusal of the terms and conditions including rules, the complainants are entitled to the revised reduced rate of interest.  The opposite parties also has not pleaded and proved the reason for non-sanctioning of the revised rate of interest.  Even after knowing fully well that the complainant has availed housing loan.

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 5 would contend that the complainants have filed this complaint with an intension to evade the repayment of the outstanding loan.  But it is really unfortunate either of the parties has not produced any statement of accounts to prove the said outstanding loan.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is that the housing loan account is coming under securitized account assigned to Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL).  But at the time of applying the loan, sanctioning the loan and availing the loan, there is no whisper regarding the said ARCIL i.e. Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.  It is also seen in Ex.A1, letter dated:26.11.2003, from the ICICI Home Finance.   Hence, the alleged AIRCIL is not a necessary party.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is that sanctioning of housing loan by the opposite parties, ICICI Bank is subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement.   Accordingly, it is the discretion of the opposite parties to retrieve the interest.  But on a careful perusal of the rules and terms and conditions of loan, there is no iota of evidence in this Forum that the opposite parties had reduced the rate of interest.  But the interest rate regarding housing loan was reduced as per the terms and conditions of Reserve Bank of India. 

7.     Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is that even if the interest rate is reduced, the EMI shall be constant and only the period of EMI alone shall be reduced.  But in this case, the opposite parties has not produced any document to prove such terms and conditions of reducing the tenure of loan.  On the other hand, the opposite parties has not reduced the tenure of loan in this case even after admitting that the rate of interest is reduced.  Equally, the opposite parties had not sanctioned the reduced rate of interest in this case the reason best known to the opposite parties proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  As per Clause 8 of the Terms and Condition – common to all Products which reads as follows:

“8. The rate of interest applicable to the loan facility shall be as prevailing on the date of disbursement and as stated in the Schedule to the Loan Agreement”.

The opposite parties had miserably failed to sanction the revised rate of interest which is apparent.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 5 shall retrieve the rate of interest and extend the benefits of reduced interest to the complainant with a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to retrieve the rate of interest and extend the benefits of reduced interest to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of May 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	26.11.2003	Home loan sanctioned letter issued by the bank
Ex.A2	01.03.2010 and 20.08.2010	Copy of pass book showing the debit of conversion charges
Ex.A3	20.05.2010	Copy of electronic mail from the complainants to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A4	25.05.2010	Copy of electronic mail from the complainants to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A5	17.06.2010	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties with acknowledgment card
Ex.A6	12.01.2010	Copy of payment receipt for a sum of Rs.12,156/-

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 TO 5 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1

19.01.2006

Copy of Special Power of Attorney

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT