Date of Filing: 04.06.2010
Date of Order: 30.03.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
Dated: 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2011
PRESENT
Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.
Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.
COMPLAINT NO: 1268 OF 2010
Sunil Kapur
S/o. Joginderchand Kapur
R/at ‘Kapur Villa’, No. 132/134
Nandidurg Road, Benson Town Post
Bangalore 560 046 Complainant
V/S
The Manager
ICICI Bank Home Loan
2nd Floor, 11th Cross
4th Main, Malleswaram
Bangalore 560 003 Opposite Party
ORDER
By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale
The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The facts of the case are that he has taken loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- from the opposite party and the loan was disbursed to the builder M/s. Puravankara Projects Ltd. by way of 2 cheques. The complainant had cancelled apartment booking and he had closed home loan account as per letter dated 14.11.2007. The opposite party in a letter dated 08.12.2007 stated that last installment of home loan has been cleared and date of closure of account was taken as 08.12.2007 as full the final settlement. The opposite party bank with a malafide intention illegally collected extra amount of Rs. 61,892/- from the complainant through ECS. Opposite party has not returned the post dated cheques to the complainant. Opposite party has adopted unfair trade practice and committed deficiency of service. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to refund sum of Rs. 61,892/- with compensation and interest.
The complainant has filed amended complaint stating that opposite party has charged foreclosure amount of Rs. 87,256/- at 2.25% on outstanding principle amount. There is no agreement for this charge. Foreclosure charges collected by opposite party is illegal and unlawful. Therefore, opposite party has to return back foreclosure charges collected from the complainant.
2. The opposite party has filed defence version stating that complainant cannot invoke provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Complaint is time barred. It is true that complainant availed home loan for Rs. 40,00,000/- from opposite party to purchase apartment. The opposite party had issued foreclosure letter to the complainant on 08.12.2007. Opposite party received the part payment of home loan. The complainant to avoid the pre-payment charges at 2.21% on the principle amount made payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- as part payment. It is the case of the opposite party that complainant has not paid any pre-closure charges during foreclosure of loan instead to avoid the pre-payment charges opted to make part payment of maximum amount and to pay the rest / balance in 11 months. Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 61,892/- is false. He is not entitled for any refund. There is no bonafide to claim the compensation. There is no deficiency of service. Hence, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.
3. Affidavit evidences are filed. Parties have produced documents. I have gone through the pleadings, evidence and documents.
4. Arguments are heard.
5. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party bank?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
6. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant has taken home loan from the opposite party bank. The total loan obtained by the complainant was to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The complainant requested for foreclosing loan account. On the request of the complainant the opposite party bank had given letter dated December 08, 2007 which is produced at Annexure E by the complainant. As per this letter the principle amount outstanding was 38,78,055/-. Interest for the month Rs. 34,687/-. Foreclosure charges at 2.25% at O/S principle is Rs. 87,256/-. Total amount payable Rs. 40,00,029/-. In view of that letter the opposite party bank received a cheque for Rs. 40,00,000/- dated 11.12.2007 from the builder Puravankara Projects Ltd. It is the case of the complainant that even after foreclosure of the loan the opposite party bank collected total amount of Rs. 61,892/- through ECS from his account. Thereby the complainant submitted that there is excess payment and demanded refund of the excess amount. The opposite party bank is relying upon the change in schedule of payment of housing loan which was given to the complainant on 28.04.2008 produced at Annexure G. As per the revised terms from 10.05.2008 the outstanding due was Rs. 13,155/-. Loan tenure was 12 months. The amount of each EMI is Rs. 1,166/-. So as per the revised terms of loan agreement the opposite party bank collected EMI at the rate of Rs. 1,166/- for 12 months. The amount of Rs. 48,995/- is collected on 10.12.2007 before realizing of cheque amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- received by the opposite party from Puravankara Projects Ltd. Therefore, there should not be any grievances or objections to the complainant for recovery of Rs. 48,995/- through ECS on 10.12.2007. As per document Annexure E admittedly, the opposite party bank collected foreclosure charges on outstanding principle amount at the rate of Rs. 2.25%. The total amount collected was Rs. 87,256/- . This foreclosure charges collected by the opposite party is not legal and proper. The opposite party bank has not produced RBI guidelines or any circular authorizing the opposite party Bank to collect foreclosure charges at 2.25% on the outstanding principle. There is no reason as to why the bank should collect foreclosure charges from the clients. The opposite party bank has not produced any agreement signed by the complainant agreeing to pay foreclosure charges. Even if there is any agreement for payment of foreclosure charges that agreement cannot be binding on the complainant because any agreement should be supported by RBI guidelines and regulations. The opposite party bank admittedly has not produced the RBI guidelines or circular to show that it has been authorised by the RBI to recover foreclosure charges from the customers. Under these circumstances the foreclosure charges collected by the opposite party bank in this case is without any authorization or authority of law. That collection shall be held as illegal and not authorised. In similar matters this forum had held that banks have no authority or legal right to collect foreclosure charges from the customers and the orders passed by this forum had been also confirmed by Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission. Therefore, in this case also admittedly, as per document of opposite party bank produced at Annexure E the foreclosure charges collected by the opposite party bank being unauthorized one shall have to be directed to refund that amount to the complainant. Since, as per the letter of opposite party Bank the total amount payable was Rs. 40,00,000/- and the bank has received cheque of Rs. 40,00,000/-, the foreclosure charges collected shall have to be refunded to the complainant. The opposite party has filed defence version but same has not been signed by the opposite party or the authorized signatory. Defence version has signed by advocate of opposite party. There is no verification to defence version. Such kind of defence version is not at all a defence version in the eye of law. Therefore, it can be taken that there is absolutely no defence from the opposite party bank. It is stated in the affidavit that he is power of attorney holder of opposite party bank but power of attorney deed is not produced. Therefore, affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party is also not proper and it will not help in any way to the opposite party. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case it can be definitely held that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 87,256/-, the foreclosure charges collected by the opposite party bank.
ORDER
7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party Bank is directed to refund Rs. 87,256/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order the above amount carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of order till payment / realisation.
8. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.
9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2011.
Order accordingly,
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings.
MEMBER MEMBER
