ANIL LALE Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Advocate, for the complainants, Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advocate, for opposite party-1 and Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate, for opposite parties-2 and 3.

(2.) Mr. Anil Lale and Mrs. Bidushi Handique Lale have filed above complaint for quashing demand notices dtd. 31/5/2019, 20/6/2019, 23/7/2019, 20/8/2019 and Loan Recall Notice dtd. 7/10/2019, issued by ICICI Bank Limited and directing ICICI Bank Limited to (i) follow the terms and conditions as envisaged in revised home loan sanction letters dtd. 22/7/2013 and 28/8/2013, (ii) pay Rs. one crore, as compensation for loss of reputation, (iii) pay Rs.25.00 lakhs, as the compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iv) pay Rs.10.00 lakhs, as the costs of the litigation; and (v) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts of the case.

(3.) The complainants stated that ICICI Bank Limited (opposite party-1) (the bank) was a banking company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of providing loans against property, home loans, financial assistance etc. to the general public. Rajesh Lifespaces Private Limited and Rajsanket Realty Limited (opposite parties-2 and 3) (the builders) were the companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in business of development and construction of housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builders launched a group housing project in the name of "Raj Infinia", at CTS No.307/66/A, village Valnai, Taluqa Borivali, Mumbai, in 2013 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. They advertised that the flats could be purchased under "subvention scheme". On inquiry, Mr. Rananjay Singh, the authorised representatives of the builders and Mr. Gaurav Wig, an officer of the bank, informed that the project was jointly offered by the bank and the builders and as per "subvention scheme", 20% of sale consideration had to pay by the buyer and 80% by the bank; and the builders would pay EMI on the bank loan, for a period of 36 months or till offer of possession, whichever was later. "Subvention scheme" was available only on the home loan taken from the bank. Mr. Afsar Sheikh, Sr. Branch Sales Manager-Mortgages of the bank, vide email dtd. 14/6/2013, informed that the bank was funding the project "Raj Infinia" in the ratio of 80:20. Allured with "subvention scheme", the complainants applied for home loan on 27/6/2013. The bank sanctioned Rs.19445303.00 on 27/6/2013 as home loan. In sanction letter dtd. 27/6/2013, condition-6 was mentioned as "This loan was under developer subvention scheme for the period of 36 months." The complainants gave emails to Mr. Rananjay Singh, the authorised representatives of the builders and Mr. Gaurav Wig, an officer of the bank, raising their protest against the condition as mentioned in the sanction letter. Then Mr. Gaurav Wig, vide email dtd. 23/7/2013, informed that the loan was under developer's subvention scheme for the period of 36 months or possession, whichever is later. Satisfying with the revised sanction letter, the complainants decided to purchase Flat No.1211, in "C" Wing and deposited Rs.4861325.00 towards 20% of sale consideration with the builders and Rs.75000.00 towards loan processing fee with the bank on 1/8/2013. The bank asked to sign blank documents including standard format of loan agreement (Facility Agreement) on 22/8/2013, without allowing to read it. In columns-8 and 9, (relating to due date of commencement of EMI and payment of first EMI), "PD" (Possession Date) were mentioned. The bank issued a Revised Home Loan Sanction Letter on 28/8/2013, in which, attached Terms and Conditions contained Condition-6 as "This loan is under developer's subvention scheme for the period of 36 months or till possession, whichever is later." The bank issued letter dtd. 30/8/2013, for disbursing Rs.18338903.00 to the builders. The bank gave cheque no.213343 dtd. 31/8/2013 of Rs.12832137.00 to the builders. On encashment of this cheque, the builders executed agreement for sale dtd. 6/9/2013, in favour of the complainants, stating under clause-9 that interest on the bank loan would be borne by the builder till handover of the possession. The bank showed debit of Rs.5506766.00 vide cheque no.213344 dtd. 31/8/2013 and credited this amount again in the loan account of the complainants on 3/9/2013 but charged interest on it. Reserve Bank of India, vide Circular DBOD.BP.BC. No.51/8/12/15/2013-14 dtd. 3/9/2013, issued advisory to all the schedule commercial banks that housing loans to individuals should be closely linked to the stages of construction of the housing project as the banks run disproportionately higher exposures with concomitant risks of diversion of funds under 80:20 or 75:25 schemes. The builder supplied Photostat copy of agreement for sale dtd. 6/9/2013, to the complainants on 14/9/2013, then they noticed that due date of possession was not mentioned in it. On inquiry, Mr. Vishal Doshi informed that possession would be delivered in the year 2016. The period of 36 months was likely to expire in June, 2016, as such, the complainants consistently started inquiry for possession from April, 2016 to October, 2017 but the builders gave some evasive time for possession and not the deadline. As the construction was unreasonably delayed, the complainants requested the builders to permit them for withdrawing from the agreement and return their money with interest. Then a settlement agreement was executed on 14/8/2018 between the complainants and opposite party-2, under which, the builders cancelled the agreement for sale and undertook to return Rs.4861325.00 with interest to the complainants and satisfy the loan of the bank of Rs.18338903.00 with interest and for-closure charges. The bank did not issue any demand letter for EMI of the loan to the complainants till April, 2019. The complainants received calls in May, 2019, for depositing EMI, then complainant-1 discussed the issue with Ms. Jaya Kachhwaha, authorised officer of the bank. The bank gave emails dtd. 30/5/2019, 31/5/2019 and 20/6/2019, informing that the builders had not paid EMI from two months and demanding Rs.149069.00 towards EMI. The complainants, vide email dtd. 20/6/2019, replied that EMIs were not payable by them as they did not receive possession of the flat. The builders did not abide with the timelines as mentioned in settlement agreement dtd. 14/8/2018 then the matter was again discussed with the builder and a Supplementary Settlement Agreement dtd. 24/6/2019 was executed between them. The builders gave Cheque nos.468069, dtd. 15/6/2019 of Rs.4861325.00, 468072 dtd. 10/7/2019 of Rs.2099846.00 in favour of the complainants and 468073 dtd. 10/7/2019 of Rs.18338903.00 in favour of the bank. Cheque nos.468069 and 468072, given to the complainants, were dishonoured when presented for encashment. The complainants filed criminal complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also filed a complaint before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The bank issued a letter dtd. 9/7/2019, to the complainants that lien had been marked on the saving account of complainant-2 with the bank on account of dues against home loan. Thereafter, debited all the money from saving account of complainant-2 and credited to the loan account. The bank again issued demand letter dtd. 23/7/2019 and emails dtd. 20/8/2019 and 4/10/2019, demanding Rs.6481768.00. The complainants replied to the above emails on 6/10/2019 through email. The bank issued Loan Recall Notice dtd. 7/10/2019 and directed to pay Rs.18627378.00 within 7 days. Then this complaint was filed on 8/11/2019, alleging unfair trade practice.