ICICI Bank Ltd vs Namdeo Dhondiba Mohite

Deepa Sharma, J

The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.06.2017 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in appeal No.207 of 2016 filed by the petitioner-bank against the order dated 26.02.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aurangabad (in short, 'the District Forum') in consumer complaint No. 271 of 2015.

The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent-complainant had taken housing loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the petitioner-bank, which was repayable in 96 installments at the rate of Rs.4166/- per month. The petitioner-bank claimed 119 installments and in this way, they had recovered additional amount of Rs.95,818/- from the respondent-complainant.

The complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging that it amounts to unfair trade practice and prayed for refund of the excess amount and claimed compensation for mental agony and also penalty by way of damages. The petitioner-bank was duly served with the complaint. The petitioner chose not to attend the proceedings before the District Forum and did not file its written statement and affidavit of evidence.

On the basis of pleadings, i.e. the contention in the complaint and the evidence led by the respondent-complainant, the District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:

"From the loan sanction letter it is seen that when the loan is sanctioned the rate of interest is 8.25%. Complainant has selected "Floating Rate of Interest". From the extract of loan account it is seen that non-applicant from time to time increased rate of interest and applied 15% rate of interest to the loan of applicant. Loan of Rs.3 Lakhs sanctioned to the complainant is meager and included in priority area loan and such type of loan applying screaming rate of interest is not intended. Though the loan is of applying interest of floating pattern, however, applying interest of 15% on housing loan is not digestible. Due to such screaming rate of interest, additional instalment is recovered from the applicant/complainant is clear. Whenever there is increase in rate of interest, it is the duty of Bank to inform the complainant and his consent is to be taken that he is agreed for the same. Non-applicant Bank has no right to apply one sided interest. In spite of giving opportunity to the non-applicant to defend the matter they have not contested the same which shows that they agreed the allegations leveled by the complainant. Complainant from time to time has not paid the instalments therefore due to bouncing of cheque penalty of Rs.7425/- and interest of Rs.6859/- is sequel. After deducting the said amount remaining amount i.e. Rs.95818/- interest minus Rs.14284/- comes to Rs.81,534/-. Therefore deducting cheque return charges and interest, the remaining amount is recovered by the non-applicant additionally from the complainant. This is the answer of point No.1. By recovering additional amount from the complainant by the non-applicants they have adopted unfair trade practice. Therefore complaint of the complainant is liable to be allowed. Therefore I answered point No.2 affirmative. The said additional amount and interest over the same from the date of filing of complaint be refunded to the complainant and same shall be legal. Therefore this Forum is passing the following Order:

ORDER

Non-applicant Bank be paid an amount of Rs.81534/- to the applicant along with interest @ 11% p.a. from 19/08/2015 within 30 days from passing of order by Demand Draft.

For damages and compensation non-applicant be paid to the applicant an amount of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of passing of order."

The petitioner-bank had impugned the order dated 26.02.2016 of the District Forum, by way of an appeal before the State Commission. Before the State Commission, the petitioner took the plea that the rate of interest was floating rate of interest and it kept on increasing and the interest was therefore charged as per the RBI guidelines.

The State Commission heard the petitioner-bank and gave the following finding:

"7. The statement of account reflects that as per agreement, though rate of interest was 8.25%, initially for 3 instalments opponent bank recovered interest @ 7.50 %. Thereafter for 9 instalments rate of interest is shown @8%. Thereafter for 3 instalments rate of interest is shown at 8.5% and further rate of interest is increased from 9.50% to 15%. According to Adv. Gawali for the opponent bank the rate of interest was increased from time to time as per the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the opponent bank. It is further submitted that the Board of Directors of the bank has discretion to increase rate of interest as per guidelines of RBI etc. But neither any guidelines of RBI nor the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the opponent bank is produced on record. Even no intimation was given to the complainant increasing rate of interest. Therefore in the absence of any record such arbitrary action of the opponent bank increasing rate of interest upto 15% from time to time cannot be justified."

This finding is impugned before this Commission on the ground that the rate of interest since was floating rate of interest, the entire loan amount became payable in 119 installments.

It is settled proposition of law that under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this Commission has a very limited jurisdiction. This Commission is not empowered to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence and substitute its own opinion on the facts of the case.

This Commission under the said provision can intervene in the order when the miscarriage of justice has been shown to have been done or where the jurisdiction has been wrongly exercised by the fora below. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011) decided on 18.03.2011 has held as under:

Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.

In the present case, the fora below has relied upon the evidences produced by the respondent-complainant. No evidence, however, had been led by the petitioner-bank. The finding of the District Forum is based on the evidences produced before it. The plea of the petitioner-bank that the rate of interest was floating was duly considered by the State Commission and the State Commission has clearly observed that although the petitioner had argued this point before it but did not produce sufficient evidence to substantiate his contention. It is, therefore, apparent that even before the State Commission, the petitioner-bank has not produced any evidence except the statement of account to justify his contention.

This fact clearly shows that the fora below have properly exercised its jurisdiction. No miscarriage of justice is shown to have been done. It is apparent that although the petitioner-bank did not lead any evidence and the matter was decided ex parte, still the petitioner-bank had challenged the ex-parte order at two fora below i.e before the State Commission where it has again lost on account of having failed to substantiate the contention by way of documentary evidence and also still not satisfied with the order, the petitioner has challenged that order before this Commission. In this way, further harassment has been caused to the respondent-complainant. While dismissing the revision petition, which is totally meritless, we impose a cost of Rs.20,000/-, which shall be paid to the complainant-respondent within four weeks by way of demand draft.

With this direction, the present revision petition stands dismissed.