ICICI BANK LTD. Vs. PADMAJA SIRIPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since facts and the issue involved in both Revision Petitions are same, we dispose of them by a common order.

(2.) According to the Petitioner/Insurance Company, Revision Petition No.3221/2017 has been filed with a delay of 70 days. The Petitioner has, therefore, filed IA/15600/2017 an application for condonation of delay. As per report of the Registry, there is no delay in filing the Revision Petition. In the interest of justice, however, IA/15600/2017 is allowed and delay condoned.

(3.) Respondent No.1 in both cases is the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 is the builder. Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 4 are ICICI Bank Ltd. and its Branches. Opposite Parties Nos.5 and 6 are ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. respectively. Opposite Party No.7 is the Commissioner, GHMC. Case of the Complainant is that she obtained a housing loan of Rs.26,83,300.00 from Opposite Party No.2/ICICI Bank Ltd. Before sanctioning the loan, the Bank was required to verify the documents relating to the project of the builder. It was found that the builder was not having a valid construction plan and approved layout. The Complainant repaid the loan amount of Rs.5,09,010.00 in instalments from May, 2008 to February, 2010. Thereafter, the Complainant could not pay the instalments as she lost her job. The Bank forcibly took possession of the Complainant's apartment. The Commissioner, GHMC informed the Complainant that the builder had constructed the apartment against the Rules and Regulations and the builder was required to pay penalty of Rs.15,96,175.00. It was also informed that ICICI Bank, ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. also colluded with each other. The Complainant was surprised to know that the Bank had released an amount of Rs.26,83,300.00 in favour of different names without her knowledge and consent. The Bank also transferred Rs.88,300.00 in the name of ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. for purchase of Insurance Policy, without her instructions. The alleged Policy, inter-alia covered the risk of loss of job. On 11/6/2011, the Complainant filed a Complaint in the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District. The Complaint was referred to SHO, Miyapur for investigation. On 21/12/2011, the Police registered FIR. The Complainant also filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with the following prayer: -