KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 278/2010
JUDGMENT DATED:23-07-2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. Sri.Alias.K.P,
S/o K.P.Poulose, Kandanalil House,
Kolangappara Post,
Wayanadu – 673 591.
: APPELLANTS
2. Mrs. Ajina Varghese,
W/o Alias.K.P, Kandanalil House,
Kolangappara Post,
Wayanadu – 673 591.
(By Adv:Sri.S.Reghukumar)
Vs.
1. The Manager,
The ICICI Home Finance, Co. Ltd,
3rd Floor, Office No.1 & 2,
Emagee Square, Door.No.40/9668 E,
M.G.Road, Kochi-682 035, : RESPONDENTS
India.
(By Adv:Sri.K.G.Mohandas Pai)
2. The Manager, The ICICI Bank,
Y.M.C.A, Cross Road, Calicut.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the complainants/husband and wife in CC.88/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The complaint has been allowed in part directing the opposite parties/ICICI Home Finance to pay a sum of Rs.1,57,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost with interest at 10%.
2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed Housing Loan from the opposite parties at the interest rate of 7.5% fixed. The amount was disbursed in 2 instalments ie Rs.5,92,064/- on 29/11/2003 and Rs.1,57,936/- on 15/1/2004. The EMI was fixed at Rs.7,914/- for 144 months. Subsequently, the opposite parties enhanced the instalments to 211. The complainant wanted to close the above loan and availed the loan from Union Bank of India that had agreed to provide loan to the tune of Rs.12,50,000/-. The Union Bank of India paid a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- for closure of the loan with the opposite parties. But the opposite parties stated that the title deed pledged as security is missing. Hence the complainant had to remit the loan amount of Rs.6,40,000/- paid by the Union Bank of India to the opposite parties at one instance. He had incurred pre-closure charges with respect to the loan from Union Bank of India. On account of the failure of the opposite parties to furnish the title deed, the complainant had to avail another loan from the opposite parties to pay back the amount of loan availed from Union Bank of India. The complainant availed Rs.6.4.lakhs and also another sum of Rs.2.lakhs from the opposite party bank for settling the amounts due to the Union Bank of India. Subsequently during the pendency of the proceedings ie on 24/10/2009 the opposite parties produced the title deed which was reportedly missing. According to the complainant he had to pay a sum of Rs.48,000/- towards pre-closure charges to the Union Bank of India. According to him he had to avail a loan of Rs.2.lakhs from a private money lender on 17/1/2008 with interest rate at 42%. The complainant was in need of educational loan also as his son was studying for MBBS. The complainant could not obtain the educational loan also on account of the lapse on the part of the opposite parties in not producing the title deed pledged as security. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,699/- as compensation.
3. On the other hand, the opposite parties have contended that the interest rate with respect to the first loan was floating rate. Number of instalments had to be increased as the interest rate was enhanced on the basis of the Reserve Bank of India guidelines. The EMI was kept constant and the number of the monthly instalments was enhanced. The title deed could not be traced at the time and subsequently the same was traced out.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 to 3, OPW1, Exts.A1 to A22 and B1 to B8.
5. At the out set it has to be noted that the complainant/appellant has not specified any particular calculation of the amount of compensation sought. As pointed out that by the counsel for the respondent, the contention of the complainant that the rate of interest was fixed rate stands disproved from Ext.A1 offer letter issued to the complainants from the opposite parties with respect to the loan of 7.5.lakhs. In clause 16 of Ext.A1 it is specifically mentioned that the interest rate meant the ICICI Home Primary Lending rate and the margin if any as specified by the ICICI bank. At the time of providing the loan the primary lending rate is mentioned as 9.75% and adjustable interest rate as 7.5% ie reducing 2.25% from the primary lending rate. It is pointed out that for the sake of attracting customers 2.25% was reduced. Subsequently, the primary lending rate got enhanced periodically and after reducing 2.25% the prevailing interest was charged. Hence according to the respondents there is no unfair trade practice perpetrated on the part of the opposite parties. All the same the Forum has directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.3000/- as cost and Rs.1,07,000/- towards variation in interest and also interest at 10% ; altogether a sum of Rs.1,57,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the entire amount as ordered by the Forum with interest was already paid. The lapse on the part of the opposite party is that they could not trace out the title deed submitted as security. It is during the above period ie till the document could be traced out and reported to the Forum on 24/10/09 that the complainant allegedly incurred losses. It is also pertinent to note that it is from the opposite party bank that the complainant has availed another loan of Rs.6.4 lakhs and Rs.2.lakhs to settle the loan amount from the Union Bank of India. We find that the opposite parties were made to pay sufficient compensation. As already noted, the complainant/appellant has not explained the calculation of the loss sustained. In the circumstances we find that there is no scope of interference in the order of the Forum. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VL.
