BIRBHAN GOYAL Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12.6.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant, for his personal requirement, to increase his efficiency and livelihood, took a loan of Rs. 70.00 lacs, from the OP, in the name of Goyal Builders Birbhan Goyal, on 31.12.2005, which was repayable in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 2,22,599. The complainant paid all the 36 EMIs towards the said loan, as per the agreement, executed between the parties, but in spite of that the OP Bank arbitrarily increased the term of EMIs from 36 months to 38 months amounting to Rs. 2,22,599 each and directed the complainant, to send two new sets of PDCs each for Rs. 2,22,599, vide letter dated 22.11.2008 (Annx. C -2). It was further stated that the OP also sent a copy of the repayment schedule, Annx.C -3, vide which it arbitrarily added two more instalments. The matter was taken up with the OP, but it did not pay any heed. Ultimately, a legal notice dated 5.12.2008 (Annx.C -4) was sent to the OP, for withdrawing its letter dated 22.11.2008, but to no avail. It was further stated that the OP was deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed.

(3.) THE OP, in its reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the loan availed of, by the complainant, was on floating rate of interest. It was further stated that at the time of granting loan, the rate of interest was 9% p.a. with the tenure of 36 months, which later on changed to 9.25% p.a. It was further stated that the aforesaid demanded amount, was on account of variation, in the rate of interest, as applicable, from time -to -time, as the loan was granted on floating rate of interest. It was further stated that the complainant had provided a limited number of cheques, in respect of the same i.e. towards the repayment of loan. The complainant was requested to make appropriate arrangements, to defray its liability, towards the payment of dues, to the bank. It was further stated that it was duly communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 28.8.2008. It was further stated that the OP was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.