State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.M. Icici Bank. Ltd. & Anr. vs Smt. Sangeeta Malhotra. on 27 March, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.414/2014
Date of Presentation: 27.11.2014
Date of Decision: 27.03.2015
..........................................................................................
(1) The Regional Manager,
ICICI Bank Limited, SCO Nos.180-182,
Sector-9, Chandigarh.
(2) The Branch Manager,
ICICI Bank Limited,
Moon International Hotel,
Chhotta Shimla, H.P.
........... Appellants.
Versus
Sangeeta Malhotra, wife of Shri Rakesh Malhotra,
Resident of Malhotra Niwas, Bridge View Estate,
The Mall, Shimla, H.P.
........... Respondent.
..........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellants: Mr. Vijay K. Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate.
..............................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present appeal is directed against the order dated 23.09.2014, of learned District 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? ICICI Bank Limited & Anr. Versus Sangeeta Malhotra (F.A. No.414/2014) ________________________________________________________________________ Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent, Sangeeta Malhotra, against the present appellants, has been allowed and a direction given to the appellants to refund the amount of `27,346/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, received by them, on account of pre-payment charges of home loan and also to pay `25,000/-, on account of compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Admitted facts are that the respondent raised a loan of `12,39,900/- from the appellants on 24.03.2006 for construction of a house. The loan was agreed to be paid in sixty-two monthly instalments of `12,761/- each. However, the respondent offered to pre-pay the entire amount of loan. Appellants charged a sum of `27,346/-, in addition to the money due, on account of loan and interest. This additional amount was charged, on account of foreclosure charges for pre-payment of the loan. After repaying the loan amount, alongwith Page 2 of 7 ICICI Bank Limited & Anr. Versus Sangeeta Malhotra (F.A. No.414/2014) ________________________________________________________________________ pre-payment charges, respondent served a legal notice, Annexure C-6, on 19.06.2007, through a counsel. Notice was replied to by communication dated 20th July, 2007, in which, it was stated that foreclosure charges has been received, as per terms & conditions of the loan agreement. On 27th May, 2009, respondent filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellants, seeking a direction to them to refund the amount of foreclosure charges, with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Complaint was contested by the appellants. It was stated that the complaint was barred by time, inasmuch as the loan had been repaid alongwith the foreclosure charges on 19.03.2007, while the complaint had been filed on 27.05.2009, or say after expiry of two years limitation period, prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, vide Section 24-A. On merits, it was stated that foreclosure charges had been Page 3 of 7 ICICI Bank Limited & Anr. Versus Sangeeta Malhotra (F.A. No.414/2014) ________________________________________________________________________ charged, in accordance with Clause 2.7 of the loan agreement.
4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, without looking the plea of limitation as raised by the appellants, has allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It is not in dispute that loan was raised on 24.03.2006 and it was repaid, in full, alongwith foreclosure charges on 19.03.2007. Grievance of the respondent is that charging of foreclosure charges by the appellants amounts to unfair trade practice. The aforesaid foreclosure charges were paid by the respondent on 19.03.2007. That means, limitation began to run on 19.03.2007. Limitation expired on 19.03.2009. Complaint was filed on 27.05.2009, or say after expiry of the period of limitation. No application was made for condonation of delay.
Page 4 of 7 ICICI Bank Limited & Anr. Versus Sangeeta Malhotra (F.A. No.414/2014) ________________________________________________________________________
7. Learned counsel representing the respondent submits that limitation is to be counted from the date when reply to the legal notice, served upon the appellants by the respondent, was received. Date written in the reply to legal notice is 20th July, 2007. According to the learned counsel, limitation in the present case expired in July, 2009. We are unable to accept the submission, for the simple reason that cause of action accrued to the respondent when foreclosure charges were demanded from her and she paid the same. This happened on 19.03.2007. In the reply to the legal notice, what the appellants did was that they re- asserted their rights to claim foreclosure charges. Therefore, fresh lease of limitation cannot be said to have become available to the respondent from the date of reply to the notice.
8. Even on merits, respondent does not have any case. First, the loan agreement bears a clause that in case of pre-payment of loan, or a part of loan, pre-payment charges, known as foreclosure Page 5 of 7 ICICI Bank Limited & Anr. Versus Sangeeta Malhotra (F.A. No.414/2014) ________________________________________________________________________ charges would be payable. Relevant clause is 2.7.
9. Moreover, when the respondent made payment of foreclosure charges, she did not raise any objection or protest. She made the payment and received a loan clearance certificate alongwith the documents, pledged as security, on 24.03.2007, vide Annexure C-5. Having paid the foreclosure charges, without any protest and to her full knowledge that the appellants had included the foreclosure charges in the total amount, demanded by them, she by not raising any protest or objection at the time of payment, precluded herself from agitating the issue. As a matter of fact, relationship of consumer and service provider came to an end between the parties, when the respondent paid the amount due in the loan account, alongwith foreclosure charges, without raising any objection or protest, with regard to demand for foreclosure charges.
10. In view of the above stated position, appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and Page 6 of 7 ICICI Bank Limited & Anr. Versus Sangeeta Malhotra (F.A. No.414/2014) ________________________________________________________________________ consequently, the complaint is dismissed, both on account of being barred by time, as also on merits.
11. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member March 27, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 7 of 7