BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOLAN, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 90/2008
Date of presentation: 29.05.2008
Date of decision: 24/12/2009
1. Dr. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, S/o sh. Dariyav Singh, R/o Q.No. 28, Type- III, UHF, Nauni Tehsil and District Solan H.P.
2. Smt. Mamta Chaudhary W/O Dr Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, R/O Q. No.28, 28 Type-III, UHF, Nauni, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.
… Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Bank Home Loans,
ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-400051,
Through its authorized signatory.
2. ICICI Bank (Home Finance),
The Mall Solan, Tehsil and District Solan H.P.
Through its Manager.
3. Sh. Manoj, DMA ICICI Bank, Mitoo Finance,
Opposite Girl School The Mall Solan H.P.
…Opposite Parties.
For the complainant: Mr. Pankaj Kashyap, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Raman Gupta, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is averred that the complainants applied through OP No.3, for providing them home loan of Rs.4,50,000/-, in the month of March, 2006, as a result of which loan agreement was executed and OPs also obtained 20 cheques of PNB Solan. It is averred that the loan amount was repayable in 216 EMI of Rs.4,145/- each starting from April, 2006, out of the said installments, 20 installments were paid to the OPs through cheques. It is averred that they deposited the entire loan installments with the OPs, but failed to provide to them the statement of accounts. It is further averred that, the OPs, charged a sum of Rs.11,000/- in excess from them, but failed to adjust the said sum. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OPs, in their reply has contended that the complainant, is, still liable to pay a sum of Rs.4445/- to them. They further contended that the statement of account and the repayment schedule has been provided to them as and when demanded. It is further contended that the rate of interest was Rs.12.5% and not 24%, as averred by the complainants. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in charging excess sum of Rs.11,000/-, hence, not refunding the same to him. However, the OPs, have repudiated the claim of the complainants, by, contending that a sum of Rs.4,445/- is, still recoverable from the complainant, hence, is exculpating their liability.
6. The parties do not wrangle over the fact of advancement of loan to the complainants, to, the extent of Rs.4,50,000/-. However, the, dispute interse the parties, is, qua charging of excess sum of Rs.11,000/- from the complainants by the OPs, and qua without, the OPs, are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.4445/-, from the complainant, on account of repayment of loan installments. A perusal of the defrayments made by the complainant, to, the, OP reveals, the, fact, that, defrayments comprising the loan installments were made to the OP, by, the complainant. However the said defrayments were made on the 24th of each month, whereas, the counsel for the OP contends, that, they being belated defrayments, hence, necessitated levy of interest, inasmuch, as, the rules, as well as the terms of the loan ordained defrayment, of, loan installments to be made on the 10th of each month. However, with the said plea having remained unsubstantiated, for, want of adduction of rules or conditions of loan mandating, the, time of defrayments and, that, for want of timely defrayments, the, levy of interest was not unwarranted, therefore, the plea having remained unsubstantiated, and with defrayments of loan installments having been made to the OP, consequently, the act of the OP interest for the purported belated defrayment of outstanding loan installments payable to the OP by the complainant, comprises, deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Since, the act of the OP levying interest for delayed defrayment to, it, of the loan installments by the complainant, for, reasons aforesaid, is, untenable, therefore, is unwarranted thereby, constituting a deficiency in service on their part.
7. Consequently, we, allow this complaint and direct, both, the OPs jointly and severally, to, pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation, to, the complainant litigation cost quantified at Rs. 1000/-payable by the OP to the complainant. It is clarified, that, the excess amount charged by the OP, while comprising levy of interest by it, for, delayed defrayment to it of the loan obligation cast upon the complainant, shall, be waived. Nonetheless, if, any outstanding loan installment, is, recoverable from the complainant while not comprising levy of interest for purported delayed defrayment to it by the complainant of the loan installments, then, it is open, for, the OP, to, recover such other sum from the complainant in accordance with Law. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas the certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OP by the office through UPC. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 24th day of December, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Virender Thakur) (Arun Bala Sharma)
Member Member.
Tags: ICICI Bank Home Loans