KAMAL Vs. ICICI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main prayer in this Original Petition (Civil) is as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.S.Renjith, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants in the Original Suit and Sri.Lal K.Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff in the Original Suit.

(3.) The petitioners herein are the applicants in Ext.P-5 I.A.No.8292/2017 in O.S.No.115/2017 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, and the defendants in the Original Suit, and the respondent herein is the respondent in the I.A and the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking realisation of money from the defendants, which is said to be due out of a loan taken by them from the plaintiff/bank. The respondents had approached the respondent/bank for home loan by securing the property and the petitioners agreed to repay the loan amount with 120 monthly instalments of Rs.10, 234/- per month for 120 months. The petitioners submit that they had already remitted 120 instalments. It is further stated that as per the variations in the FRR, the interest and the monthly instalment of the loan is changed and the same is also intimated to the petitioners and now the tenure of the loan is 208 monthly instalments and the instalment amount is Rs.10, 500/-. The contention of the petitioners is that they have filed C.C.No.59/2016 before the Consumer Disputes Reddressal Forum and S.A.No.370/2016 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal regarding the same matter. It is specifically stated by the petitioners that they have never agreed to increase the tenure of loan period and on 1.11.2015, petitioners have remitted the 120th instalment to the respondent to close the loan account and approached the respondent-bank for the documents. It is averred that the respondent-bank has not returned the documents and intimated the petitioners that loan amount of Rs.5, 63, 536/- is still due. The respondent-bank had not intimated the petitioners about the variation of interest rate till now, it is averred. Accordingly, the petitioners were constrained to file a complaint before the C.D.R.F., seeking relief under deficiency of service and for return of original documents stating that the entire loan amount had already been paid. It is stated that the petitioner has filed Ext.P-5 I.A.No.8292/2017 in O.S.No.115/2017 before the trial court concerned under Sec.10 r/w Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the suit contending the pendency of the C.C before the C.D.R.F, Ernakulam, regarding the same matter. To the said Ext.P-5 I.A, the respondent filed Ext.P-6 objection stating that the said I.A. is not maintainable. After hearing both sides, the court below has dismissed Ext.P-5 I.A as per the impugned Ext.P-7 order dated 12.12.2017 holding that the proceedings in the C.D.R.F., will not come under the purview of the consideration for the grant of stay under Sec.10 r/w. Sec.151 of the C.P.C. It is this order at Ext.P-7, that is under challenge in this Original Petition. The case of the petitioner is that the issue to be decided by the Consumer Court is also whether the respondents herein can collect additional interest and whether the instalment period increased from 120 to 208 is proper. Accordingly, the petitioner would contend that the issue in Ext.P-1 suit and Ext.P-3 complaint are one and the same and inextricably connected. It is in the light of these aspects, that the petitioners have the above Original Petition (Civil) with the aforementioned prayers.