Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/538/2018

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Home Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Sharma

11 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/538/2018
Date of Institution	:	29/10/2018
Date of Decision	:	11/02/2020

 

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

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

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, Registered Office: ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra – Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051, through its Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant had approached the OP-Bank and was sanctioned home loan of Rs.6,38,669/- in June 2005 vide Loan Account No. LBCHD00001083340 with floating rate of interest for 120 months (10 years). It has been alleged that as per the loan agreement, the term of the loan ought to have been concluded by June 2015, but the OP-Bank illegally continued to deduct EMI from the account of the Complainant, thereby causing monetary loss to him. Further, the OP-Bank sent demand notice dated 05.04.2018 claiming amounts which it (OP-Bank) has no explanation whatsoever. On gaining knowledge of the fact that the EMIs of the aforesaid loan were still being deducted by the OP-Bank, the Complainant sent letter dated 10.10.2017 to the OP-Bank, followed by e-mail dated 13.10.2017 and reminder dated 20.10.2017, but to no success. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 11.05.2018 upon the OPs, but the same did not fructify. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties have contested the Complaint and filed reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that interest has 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. No consent of the Complainant was required for the purpose of the same. The same has been done strictly in accordance with the terms & conditions of the agreement. The Complainant was aware of the variation and the resultant effect on both the EMI as well as the tenure but he never chose to get the same changed. The concerns of the Complainant were duly replied to, and the entire position was made explained to him, but notwithstanding that he chose to file the present Consumer Complaint.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
6.         The allegation of the Complainant is that as per the loan agreement, the term of the loan ought to have been concluded by June 2015, but the Opposite Parties illegally continued to deduct the EMIs from the account of the Complainant. As per the case of the Complainant, after gaining the knowledge of the fact that the EMIs of the aforesaid loan were still being deducted by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant sent various letters, followed by reminders and lastly one legal notice was issued, but still his grievance was not redressed by them.
7.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that interest was charged on the basis of the applicable Floating Reference Rate and information with regard to the same was sent to the Complainant time to time. Despite giving the offers, the Complainant chose not to get the same changed and preferred to file the present complaint.
8.         On perusal of the various documents on record, it becomes apparently clear that various letters were sent by the Opposite Parties informing the Complainant from time to time regarding the revision in the rate of interest. Through these letters, the Opposite Parties requested the Complainant that if he wants to avail the effe4ct of the benchmark rate revision on the EMI amount, he needed to visit the nearest ICICI Bank Asset Servicing Branch, within 30 days from the date of receipt of that particular letter. Importantly, there are numerous letters of the same kind placed on record by the Opposite Parties. Not only so, in its reply the Opposite Parties have placed on record the accounts statement of the loan of the Complainant, which clearly shows that there were various occasions when the EMIs were not paid at the due date and hence, the bouncing charges were levied to the loan account and even late payment charges were levied to the loan account of the Complainant when EMIs were paid after the due date. More so, despite getting various opportunities, the Complainant did not place on record any evidence rebutting the contentions of the Opposite Parties. In the absence of which the assertions made by the Complainant are bald and thus, cannot be believed at its face value. Notably, the legal notice served upon by the Complainant was duly replied by the Opposite Parties clarifying the whole proposition of the case. 
9.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

11^th February,2020                            

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”