Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/74/2020

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Home Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

29 Nov 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	74 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	18.05.2020
Date of Decision	:	29.11.2021

 

Gurmeet Singh son of Sh. Swarn Singh R/o #1631, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh – 160022.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1.  ICICI Home Finance Limited, SCO 319, 1^st Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh – 160036 through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Phone Banking Center, ICICI Bank Tower, 7^th Floor, Survey No.115/27, Plot No.12, Nanakramguda, Serilingampally, Hyderabad – 500032 through its Manager.
3. ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, Regional Office: ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra – Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051, through its Manager.

…Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued Physically by:

 

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the complainant (appellant herein) against order dated 11.02.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh) (in short ‘the District Commission’), dismissing his consumer complaint No.538 of 2018.

2.             In nutshell, the complainant was sanctioned home loan of Rs.6,38,669/- at the floating rate of interest, which was to be repaid in 120 months (10 years). As per the loan agreement, the terms of loan was to end up by June 2015 but the opposite parties Bank illegally continued to deduct EMI from his account, thereby causing monetary loss to him. A demand notice dated 05.04.2018 was also sent by the opposite parties in that regard. In return, letter dated 10.10.2017 coupled with email dated 13.10.2017 and reminder dated 20.10.2017 were sent by the complainant to the opposite parties but of no avail. Lastly, after serving legal notice dated 11.05.2018 upon the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint before the District Commission. On the other hand, the opposite parties contested the allegations made in the complaint on the ground that interest had been charged on the basis of the applicable Floating Reference Rate (FRR) and variation in the rate of interest may be either/or both the EMI and/or the tenure and no consent of the complainant was required for the said purpose, which was strictly done as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It was stated that the complainant was aware of the variation and the resultant effect on both the EMI as well as the tenure but he did not chose to get the same changed. 

3.             The parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.             The District Commission after hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record dismissed the complaint as stated above.

5.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case and the written arguments filed by the parties.

6.             Before touching the merits of the case, we would like to dispose of a Miscellaneous Application No.294 of 2020 filed by the appellant for condonation of 50 days in filing the appeal on the ground that though the copy of order impugned was received by the appellant on 28.02.2020 and appeal could be filed up-to 29.03.2020 but due to Lockdown on account of Covid-19, the appeal could not be filed within limitation and due to this reason, delay of 50 days occurred in filing the same. The application was not contested by the respondents as they did not file any reply to the same. Thus, in view of peculiar circumstances on account of Lockdown, there was sufficient reason with the appellant not to file the appeal within the stipulated period. Therefore, in view of the order dated 23.09.2021 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case passed in Misc. Application No.65/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 titled ‘IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION VERSUS XXXX’ the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

7.             On merits, the order of the District Commission has been sought to be challenged on the ground that it was assured by the respondents that the variation/fluctuation in the rate of interest would be reflected in the EMIs and as per the loan tenure, the respondents were bound to charge the installment from August, 2006 to July, 2016 but even July, 2016 onwards, the Bank kept on illegally deducting the EMI through ECS process, without giving any intimation to the appellant and without following the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, the Bank could not increase the EMIs. It was stated that the District Commission did not properly appreciated the pleadings, evidence and law points involved in the complaint.

8.             However, on behalf of the respondents, it was argued that whenever there is an increase in the rate of interest, there may be an increase in the tenure of the loan, subject to permissible limits, in order to avoid burdening the complainant with higher EMI as mentioned in the loan agreement duly signed by the complainant at the time of disbursement. It was further submitted that the complainant had purposely chosen not to place the complete agreement on record. It was further argued that the complainant was aware that the EMIs are changing based on the floating rate of interest from 2009 onwards and now he cannot state that tenure was fixed. It was further submitted that due to continuous bounces, the repayment mode ECS was deactivated and EMIs from the month of January 2018 till December 2018 were not presented through ECS and as such, the complainant was liable to pay the bouncing as well as late payment charges. It was argued that the District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant.

9.             After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. We are in agreement with the contention raised by the respondents that the appellant is bound by the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement, which he signed at the time of disbursement of the loan amount. It is common knowledge that the EMI of a floating rate loan changes with changes in market interest rates. If market rates increase, the repayment increases. When rates fall, the dues also fall. The floating interest rate is made up of two parts: the index and the spread. Further, the interest charged on the loan will be pegged to the base rate determined by Reserve Bank of India based on various economic factors. Changes, if any, in the interest rate during the tenor of the loan will not affect the EMI; instead, the tenor of the floating interest loan will vary. In the instant case also, with increase in the rate of interest, which was floating, the tenure of repayment of loan increased. The complainant never came forward to say that the terms and conditions, contained in such agreement, were, in any way, unconscionable or were not acceptable to him.
The agreement is required to be interpreted, in accordance with the terms and conditions, contained therein. As and when there was increase or decrease in the rate of interest or variation in EMI consequent thereto, intimation was always given to the complainant by the opposite parties. The District Commission was right in coming to the conclusion that the demand was raised by the opposite parties strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties and duly signed by them.

10.           Not only above, per account statement placed on record of District Commission by the opposite parties abundantly proved on record that on numerous occasions, EMIs were not paid, which made the complainant liable to pay bouncing charges as well late payment charges as per accepted terms and conditions of the agreement, which the District Commission has rightly held so. Under these circumstances, the demand could not be said to be arbitrary nor the opposite parties were deficient in rendering service nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. We are of the considered view that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission and the appeal filed by the complainant deserves dismissal.

11.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 11.02.2020 passed by District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.538 of 2018 is upheld.

12.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

29.11.2021.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad