Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/902/2019

Dr. Guranjandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P.S. Punia Adv. & Harveen Kaur Adv.

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	902 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	06.09.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	01.02.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr.Guranjandeep Singh, resident of H.No.17, Hargobind Enclave, Vikas Marg Extension, Delhi, at present resident of 407, MACKENZIE Street, Middle Ridge, Queens Land (4350), Australia, through its Special Power of Attorney Ladwinder Singh Baath son of Sh.Karamjit Singh Baath, resident of H.No.991, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  ICICI Bank Limited, through Manager, ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051

2]  The Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

3]  The Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, SCF 21-22, Phaase-7, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali Punjab 160059

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Mrs.Harveen Kaur, Adv. for complainant.

   None for OPs

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant precisely is that he obtained a Housing Loan of Rs.10.35 lacs from OP Bank vide Loan Agreement dated 22.4.2005 for construction of house. The loan was sanctioned with floating rate of interest of @7.25% per annum (FRR 8.25–margin 1%) repayable in 240 equated monthly installments of Rs.8181/- for a period of 20 years.  It is submitted that the complainant shifted to Australia in 2005, and as the terms of 240 months was near completion, he visited the OP Bank Branch in Delhi and came to know that the EMI has been increased from Rs.8181/- to Rs.9489/- w.e.f. 7.8.2006 to 7.4.2007 and further increased to Rs.10506/- w.e.f. 07.05.2007 to 07.10.2007 and further increased to Rs.11091/- w.e.f. 07.11.2008 to 07.07.2009. It was also found that it was further EMI charged was Rs.10367/- from 07.08.2009 to 07.04.2011 as a result of decrease in rate of interest. Thereafter, rate of interest was increased and EMI charged @ Rs.11147/- from 07.05.2011 to 07.10.2011 and thereafter EMI has been charged @ Rs.12105/ -.  It is submitted that the rate of interest charged was 7.75% per annum upto 07.04.2006 and thereafter it was increased to 8.25% upto 07.07.2006 and thereafter it was increased to 9.75% upto 07.04.2007. Again it was increased to 11.75% from 07.05.2007 and then increased to 12.50% from 07.07.2008, again increased to 13.25% from 07.11.2008 and then decreased to 12.75% from 07.01.2009 and then decreased to 11.75% from 07.07.2009. Again it was increased to 12.75% from 07.10.2010 and then again increased to 13.50% from 07.05.2011 and again increased from 07.08.2011 to 14% and then to 14.75% from 07.11.2011 and then decreased to 14.50% from 07.07.2012 which continued upto 07.09.2013 then increased to 14.75% from 07.10.2013 which continued upto 07.12.2015 then decreased to 14.10% from 07.01.2016 then decreased to 14.05% from 07.10.2016 then to 14% from 07.04.2017 then to 13.85% from 07.07.2017 then to 13.75% from 07.10.2017 then to 13.60% from 07.01.2018 then to 13.50% from 07.04.2018, thereafter increased to 13.60% from 07.10.2018 which is continuing.  It is submitted that the EMI is being charged at the rate of Rs.12,105/- per month at the rate of interest 13.60% and the period of 240 months have been stretched to 360 months.  It is also submitted that the rate of interest has been increased exorbitantly against the RBI guidelines and the agreement whereby rate of interest agreed was 7.25%.  It is further submitted that no intimation was ever given to the complainant regarding change of interest nor regarding increase of payment period from 240 months to 360 months.  It is pleaded that as per rough calculation of complainant, he has in all paid about Rs.10 lacs against loan of Rs.10.35 lacs and the OP is still demanding Rs.8 lacs for closing the account as on Dec., 2018.  The complainant also served a legal notice to the OPs which was replied (Ann.C-4 & C-5) but they did not redress his grievance. Hence, the present complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to the loan disbursement and execution of the agreement along with its terms and conditions has stated that the FRR as stated in the complaint itself was liable to change and hence the applicable rate of interest also.  It was never agreed that the ROI shall be 7.25% fixed as alleged.  It is denied that the complainant was not aware of change in ROI.  It is also stated that the complainant was admittedly staying outside India since 2005 and it was the duty of the complainant to disclose his changed status to the Bank and no person who is a NRI is allowed to operate Non-NRO/NRE account, hence the very basis of the loan and the account from which it was being paid was flawed. It is further pleaded that the parties are governed by its own contract. It is denied that the rate has been increased exorbitantly or is against the guidelines of the RBI. It is pleaded that the loan was advanced on adjustable interest rate i.e. floating rate of interest which continued to change.  It is also pleaded that on account of change in rate of interest, the tenure period was also changed. It is also pleaded that no excess interest levied to complainant’s loan account at any point of time and whenever there is an increase in rate of interest, there may be an increase in tenure of the loan to the customer. Denying remaining allegations, being false, and pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions of OPs made in their reply.

 

4]       We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

 

5]       The complainant’s grouse precisely is regarding unlawful increase of rate of interest from 7.25% per annum upto 14.75% per annum as well as loan tenure from 240 months to 360 months in respect of Home Loan provided to him by the OPs that too without his consent. The complainant stated that the said act of OPs is illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice as no intimation to complainant or his consent was taken while applying changed interest rate on his loan.

 

6]       The point for consideration is as to whether the opposite parties can increase the rate of interest and period of installments without the consent and knowledge of the complainant. The Counsel for the complainant has argued that the amount of interest was increased by the opposite parties by increasing the tenure of loan. We fully agree with the contentions of the complainant as in the present case, the amount of loan sanctioned & disbursed as per (Ann.C-1) Home Loan Document dated 22.4.2005 was Rs.10,35,000/- repayable in 240 EMI (Equated Monthly Installments) of Rs.8181/- each. The complainant on receipt of Repayment Schedule, dated 18.12.2018 (Ann.C-2) came to know that his loan tenure has been increased to 322 months which proves that the installments will be continued for period of about 7 more years approx. The total months which were fixed as 240 on 22.4.2005 have become 322 on 18.12.2018. The said increase of installments has not been corroborated by the opposite parties by any documentary evidence i.e. any rule or law allowing them to re-schedule the tenure of the loan for such a long period without obtaining the consent of the complainant. 

         Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.877 of 2013 – ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Pankaj Goyal, decided on 8.6.2015 wherein it has held that Bank cannot increase rate of rent without notice and without consent of borrower.   

7]       Further, the opposite parties cannot put the complainant into disadvantageous position acting arbitrarily by increasing the rate of interest exorbitantly. This clearly amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand Jain & Anr., R.P. No.806, decided on 15.10.2012 has been held that:-

In our view the concept of floating rate of interest flows from the regulation of rate of interest by the RBI guidelines and not arbitrarily by the service provider without informing or telling the reasons for increasing the rate of interest in general terms and not that there is inflationary market. Every discretion has to be exercised judicially so as to make persons understand fully as to the reasons and ground for increasing the rate of interest and not arbitrarily under the garb of floating rate of interest. In the instant case no such reason was advanced by the appellant.

 

         Thus, the opposite parties adopted unfair method in order to gain monetary benefits against the interest of the consumer complainant.

8]       For the sake of arguments, even if, it is presumed that no notice was agreed to be given to the borrower, we put reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No. 2238 of 2018 decided on 2.4.2019 wherein it has been held that the consumer cannot be bound with the terms and conditions of the agreement which are one sided. Thus the terms and conditions, if any, which were one sided, cannot be blindly fastened upon the consumer. Moreover, the terms & conditions, as evident vide Home Loan document Ann.C-1, are in such a miniature font that one is unable to go through the same easily.

9]       Keeping in view the record and evidence discussed above, opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice by changing the EMIs and tenure of the installment of loan without any intimation to complainant or his consent.    

10]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & finding and especially the fact that the complainant has obtained the loan in question on floating rate of interest, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is proved.  Hence, the present complaint is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties as under:-

1. The OPs are directed to overhaul the loan account of the complainant and charge interest, as fixed by Reserve Bank of India from time to time since 2005 till January, 2023 and make refund of excess amount to complainant, if any.
2. The OPs are also directed to supply complete account statement to the complainant after overhauling the loan account, as per aforesaid directions.
3. The OPs further are directed to pay a compository amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss caused to him which includes cost of litigation as well.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.15000/- apart from above relief.

11]      Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

1^st February, 2023                                                                            Sd/-

 

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI  MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER