KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 267/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 18.04.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 82/2013 of CDRF, Kollam)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Karunagappally-690 518.
- ICICI Bank Ltd., Land Mark, Ree Cousse Circle, Vedodra-390 007
(By Advs. Lal K. Joseph & Suja R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Yesodhamma, W/o Somarajan Pillai, Thapasya, Manakkara, Sasthamkotta P.O.
- Somarajan Pillai, S/o Madhavan Pillai, Thapasya, Manakkara, Sasthamkotta P.O.
(By Advs. Renjith R. Nair & Vishnu Nair)
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellants are the opposite parties in C. C. No. 82/2013 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (District Forum for short). The District Forum as per the order dated 29.02.2016 had directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 14,122/- withdrawn from the account of the complainant, Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as costs. Being aggrieved by the above order this appeal has been filed.
2. The case of the complainants is that they had availed a housing loan from the opposite party by mortgaging their property on the agreed terms to repay the same in 84 EMI terminating the loan by December 2012 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Though the complainant had promptly remitted 84 EMI the 1st opposite party had illegally withdrawn Rs. 14,122/- from the account of the complainant during the months of January, February and March of 2013 and retained the original document including the title deed of the complainant.
3. The opposite parties filed a version that the complainants are not consumers and the agreement was executed fixing the interest at floating rate. Though the loan was sanctioned for 84 months, due to change in the rate of interest the remittance of loan amount was enhanced to 105 months.
4. On the side of the complainant PW1 was examined and Exts. P1 to P7 marked. The opposite party examined DW 1 and exhibited D1 to D6.
5. The appellants would contend that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. According to them, the District Forum had failed to consider that the complainant had sought for a relief against the recitals in the agreement and the opposite parties are entitled to recover the entire amount covered by the agreement.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the records of the District Forum. Ext. D2 is the loan agreement. Schedule B of the agreement contemplates the terms and conditions of the loan. Computation of interest is specifically shown in Ext. D2 which shows that interest rate was fixed with a clause that it will vary in accordance with the increase or decrease in the rate fixed by the bank. So it can be seen that floating interest rate was made applicable to the transaction which was specified in the agreement also. Hence the opposite parties are justified in realizing the surplus amount that accrued due to the hike in the interest rate fixed by the Bank.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant would contend that his parties were not informed about the change of interest rate and hence it amounts to unfair practice adopted by the opposite parties in retaining the original title document and realizing more amount than that fixed at the time of loan agreement.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would place reliance upon an order of the National Commission in “ICICI Bank Limited versus Vishnu Bansal” wherein it is clarified that the Bank will be having rights to increase or decrease the rate of interest under the floating rate of interest as provided for in the loan agreement executed between the Bank and the complainant. It is also ruled that the variations in the rate of interest might be in the public domain through notifications and the court has to presume that such notifications are regularly published and hence such official acts are deemed to have been performed and the National Commission came to a conclusion that there was no deficiency of service or unfair practice on the side of the bank. This being the settled legal position it cannot be found that the opposite parties had committed unfair practice or any sort of deficiency in their service and hence the order of the District Forum is found unsustainable. Therefore the appeal is allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sd/-
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
jb
