CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.48/2006
SMT. JASBIR KAUR
W/O SH. BHAG SINH GAMBHIR
R-12 GREATER KAILASH, PART-I,
NEW DELHI-110048
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- ICICI BANK LTD.
ICICI BANK TOWERS,
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
MUMBAI-400051
- ICICI BANK LTD.
VIDEOCON TOWER, 2ND FLOOR,
BLOCK-E/1, JHANDEWALAN EXTN.,
NEW DELHI-110055
- ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPNAY LIMITED,
ICICI BANK TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
MUMBAI-400051
- ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPNAY LIMITED
THROUGH HEAD HOME LOANS
ICICI TOWERS, NBCC PLACE,
BHISMA PITAMAH MARG, PRAGATI VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110003
- ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPNAY LTD.
THROUGH RUCHIR JAUHARI
B-1 JAKANPURI, NEW DELHI-110048
- SHRUTI SHARMA
RELATIONSHIP OFFICER
ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPNAY LTD.
ICICI TOWERS, NBCC PLACE,
BHISMA PITAMAH MARG, PRAGATI VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110003
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 25.02.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
In brief the case of the complainant is that representative of OP assured complainant that she will be given a home loan of Rs.65 lakhs @ 7% interest per annum on reducing balance. Complainant was utterly shocked when she was informed that a loan of Rs.35 lakhs was sanctioned instead of Rs.45 lakhs as applied by her. The aforesaid loan amount had an interest rate of 8% instead of committed rate of 7% per annum. Complainant had no other option but to avail the loan of Rs.35 lakhs at 8% per annum as complainant had already deposited all the original documents/title deed and completed all the formalities for availing the Home Loan. Complainant executed an agreement for a loan of Rs.35 lakhs with OP on 26.09.2003. It was nowhere stated that OP may charge foreclosure charge @ 2.21% on loan.
It is further stated that complainant regularly paid the EMIs and after one year requested for subsequent top up loan of Rs.25 lakhs but she was shocked to know that an amount of Rs.7 lakhs was only disbursed. Complainant was thoroughly disgusted and have no option but to accept the said amount. Complainant was not satisfied with the conduct of OP hence complainant chose to foreclose the loan amount. Complainant has further asked to receive the letter dated 19.05.2005 wherein OPs have levied a foreclosure charges @ 2.21%. The aforesaid charges are totally arbitrary and were not disclosed to complainant at the time when the aforesaid loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed. Complainant has not been provided with any schedule of charges and the foreclosure charges was never communicated by OP to complainant.
It is further stated that on 18.5.2005 complainant repaid the entire loan amount through demand draft. Complainant in order to foreclose the loan account had no option but to pay a foreclosure charges of Rs.83,417.45 as the OP reused to close the loan account without paying the aforesaid charges. It is prayed that OPs be directed to refund the foreclosure amount of Rs.83,417.45 alongwith interst @ 12% p.a.
OP in the reply has denied the allegations made in the complaint. It is denied that it was ever assured to complainant that she will be given the loan @ 7% interest. It is stated that complainant was told that she would be given a loan of Rs.35 lakhs @ 8% per annum. It is denied that it was never mentioned in the agreement that complainant would have to pay foreclosure charges @ 2.21% at the time of foreclosure of the loan. It is further stated that the subsequent top up loan for Rs.25 lakhs was never committed. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
The only short point for consideration in the present complaint is whether OP was justified in charging foreclosure charges. The contention of complainant is that at the time of taking loan she was never informed that she has to pay foreclosure charges @ 2.21% whereas contention of OP is that as per the terms and conditions of agreement executed between the partis, complainant has to pay the foreclosure charges in case complainant wants to foreclose the loan. Onus lies on the OP bank to prove that such terms existed in the loan agreement. It is not in the dispute that the entire loan amount has been paid including the foreclosure charges. OP bank has not placed any document to show that they were entitled to charge foreclosure charges in case the loan is foreclosed. It was for the OP bank to prove that such condition existed in the agreement. OP has filed to prove the same. OP has not placed any document on record to suggest that complainant has agreed to pay foreclosure charges.. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.83,417.45 alongwith interest @ 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
