BRIJ BHUSHAN AGGARWAL Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'The Act') assails the order dtd. 16/11/2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (in short, 'State Commission) in First Appeal No. 288 of 2012 arising out of the order dtd. 25/6/2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (in short, 'District Forum') in C.C. No. 683 of 2011.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners / complainants (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners') are that they had entered into a loan agreement on 22/8/2016 with the respondent bank for House No. 1115, Sector - 33 C, Chandigarh for Rs.1,90,00,000.00 with an E.M.I. of Rs.1,89,903.00 per month to be repaid over 180 monthly instalments @ 12% interest p.a. After some time petitioners approached the respondent bank for transfer of the loan to Punjab National Bank, which was charging a lower rate of interest of 9.75%. However, the respondent bank persuaded the petitioners to shift to the Money Saver Account for the loan which was stated to be an equally attractive preposition. As the petitioners desired to take another home loan for House No. 1130, Sector - 33C, Chandigarh for Rs.1,59,99,990.00, they accepted this offer. A loan account under the Money Saver Scheme which required Rs.1.00 lakh to be deposited per month along with the E.M.I. for the loan for 89 months was accordingly opened. This was based on a letter of proposal from the respondent bank (Annexure C 1 before the District Forum, Chandigarh) dtd. 22/10/2007. After the petitioners entered into this arrangement, it was subsequently discovered by them that the respondent bank had charged 0.25% as transfer charges on the existing loan for transfer to the Money Saver Scheme. The petitioners were also required to honour loan agreement dtd. 13/10/2007 against House No. 1115 with the condition that the terms and conditions of the letter dtd. 22/10/2007 will be treated as part of this agreement. The petitioners deposited the stipulated monthly instalments of E.M.I. in both home loans as well as additional deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh per month as per the agreed terms and conditions. However, the respondents levied the floating rate of interest and other charges unilaterally without disclosing the same to the petitioners. As efforts to resolve the issue with the respondent bank did not succeed, the petitioners approached the District Forum, Chandigarh by way of complaint, which was allowed on 25/6/2012, directing the respondent bank to adhere to the terms and conditions in Annexure C1.

(3.) This order was challenged before the State Commission by the respondent bank which allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum vide its order dtd. 16/11/2012, which is impugned in this revision petition.