National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Parvin Juneja vs Icici Bank Ltd. on 23 January, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1674 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 07/07/2017 in Complaint No. 362/2016 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. PARVIN JUNEJA S/O. KEWAL KRISHAN JUNEJA.
E-47, GREATER KAILASH-II. NEW DELHI-110048 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ICICI BANK LTD. 2ND FLOOR, ICICI BANK TOWERS, NBCC PLACE, BHISHMA PITAMAH MARG. NEW DELHI-110003 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,MEMBER
For the Appellant : For the Respondent :
Dated : 23 Jan 2020 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Appellant : Mr. Chirag Deswal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate
Mr. G.C. Gupta, Advocate
Pronounced on: 23rd January 2020
ORDER
PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Brief facts: The complainant Mr. Pravin Juneja availed home loan sanctioned by the ICICI Bank (OP) for a sum of Rs. 74,00,000/- for a period of 10 years (120 months) qua a property located in Greater Kailash. The monthly instalment fixed was Rs. 93,741/- as the EMI. The loan was to end in February, 2015. The complainant alleged that he kept on paying the EMIs even after the stipulated time period on the demand of the OP. The complainant requested for a no due certificate, upon which he learnt that the OP was charging exorbitant rate of interest on the loan and it was at floating rate and not as per the rate agreed. The complainant had to pay Rs. 1,18,24,421/- instead of Rs. 1,12,48,920/-. The complainant paid an excessive amount of Rs. 5,75,501/- to the OP. Being aggrieved, a complaint was filed on 05.04.2016 before the State Commission. After filing the complaint, the OP bank issued a demand letter dated 16.05.2016 to pay arrears of Rs. 6,09,034/- inclusive of interest upto 12.05.2016. Therefore, the complainant filed an application before the State Commission for staying the operation and the demand letter dated 16.05.2016.
2. The OP bank filed the written statement and submitted that the complaint and the said application are not maintainable under the SERFAESI Act (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002). Only floating rate of interest was applicable and the loan was against the property. The OP bank did not collect excess amount from the complainant. It contended that interference by the State Commission would cause sever prejudice to the OP bank and the purpose of SERFAESI Act, 2002 and DRT Act (Debt Recovery Tribunal Act) would be defeated.
3. The State Commission after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record, dismissed the application and the matter was further listed on 04.12.2017 for rejoinder and evidence by affidavit to be filed by the complainant within eight weeks with advance copy to the OP bank.
4. The State Commission while dismissing the application, made the following observations:
3. ...xxx... in clause (E) dealing with interest it has been mentioned that ICICI Bank floating reference rate 8.5% per annum on the date of execution of said agreement. He insisted on use of word 'floating' which means that it was not a fixed rate of interest. Rather it was to vary according to the rates approved by RBI from time to time. On the next page i. e. page 41 in clause (G) dealing with amortization term of payment it has been mentioned as 120 months with a * above the word months. The * has been explained at the bottom by mentioning subject to variation of terms of agreement. Thus the period of 120 months was open to variation with a change in the rate of interest.
4. Counsel for OP also drew our attention to letter dated 01.07.15 by OP which is at page 41 of the bunch of WS filed by the OP. Vide this letter OP informed the complainant that benchmark reference rate (FRR)* of ICICI Bank loans with floating rate of interest has decreased by 0.25% w. e. f. April 10, 2015 and further decreased by 0.05% w. e. f. June 26, 2015. In view of the same rate of interest for complainant's loan has been revised by 16.2% per annum. * has been explained at the bottom by mentioning that FRR denotes floating reference rate which is reviewed periodically.
...xxx...
8. ...xxx... Thus we find that the complaint has no prima facie case. If the OP is able to recover the amount, and the action of the OP is found to be illegal complainant can recover the same from the bank. OP is a bank and not individual from whom recovery would be difficult. Thus the complainant would not suffer any irreparable loss. The loss would be ascertained amount of money. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the OP as it intends to recover the amount which is apparently recoverable by it.
(extracts of paras 3,4 and 8 of the State Commission's Order)
5. The complainant being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, preferred the instant first appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
7. On bare perusal of the letter dated 29.02.2016 of the OP bank depicts that the loan of Rs. 74,00,000/- was sanctioned with a Floating Rate of Interest (FRR 8.25 % + Margin 0.75 %) i.e 9 % p.a. payable in 120 months (10 years), and the tabulation also mentions about the changes in the FRR on various dates. The letter also tabulates the changes in the FRR on various dates.
8. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, we dismiss the First Appeal. It is needless to state that the order of the State Commission is hereby affirmed.
Per Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member
9. The short point in this case is that a complaint case, being c.c. no. 362 of 2016, is under adjudication before the State Commission. The complainant filed an application seeking interim protection apropos a demand letter issued by the opposite party bank. The State Commission, for reasons recorded, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved therewith, the complainant filed the instant appeal before this Commission.
10. It is noted that the complaint case is before the forum of original jurisdiction, i.e. the State Commission, it is pending adjudication. Vide its impugned Order of 07.07.2017, the interim protection from recovery, sought by the complainant, was not provided, the application was dismissed, and the matter was posted for further proceedings. The opposite party is a bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.), which functions under the superintendence of the central bank, the RBI. The complaint has as yet to be adjudicated on merit. The complainant will not be left remediless if the interim protection is not provided; in the contingency that his complaint succeeds, the relief can be quantified in monetary terms and ordered so. The bank's case before the State Commission is that it is recovering the money due from the complainant in the normal wont of its functioning. It is nowhere discernible, at this stage in the proceedings before the State Commission, that the complainant is being singled out for discrimination or is being differently treated from similarly situate persons by the bank. In such facts and situation, we agree with the State Commission that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the opposite party bank and that interim protection from recovery is unwarranted.
11. With this brief discussion, the appeal is dismissed. The State Commission is requested to adjudicate the complaint case on merit as per the law. It goes without saying that the complainant (as well as the opposite party bank) would be free, if either or both so choose, to agitate the State Commission's findings before this Commission under Section 19 of the Act 1986 as per the law.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DINESH SINGH MEMBER