ROHIT BAJAJ Vs. ICICI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the Case are as follows:-

(2.) The said execution application filed by the Complainants was contested by the Opposite Parties by contending that there is no default on the part of the Opposite Parties while complying with the directions of this Hon'ble Commission, vide order dated 17.04.2008. On the contrary, the Complainants have wrongly invoked Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since they have attempted to portray a false picture before this Commission that the Opposite Parties have been charging interest beyond 6.4% per annum. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have not charged any excess rate of interest as alleged by the Complainants.

(3.) This Hon'ble Commission, vide its order dated 17.04.2008 had not struck down the Agreement executed between the Parties. Therefore, the Parties are still governed by the terms and conditions of the said Agreement. While the Opposite Parties were directed not to charge interest at a rate exceeding 6.4% per annum, the Complainants were under a contractual obligation to regularly service their accounts by clearing the outstanding amounts. It is clear from the terms of the Agreement that non-payment of the outstanding amount would attract penal charges of 2%. The penal interest charged by the Opposite Parties was on the overdrawn amount. The overdrawn amount is the outstanding amount (-) drawing power of the Complainants. The Complainants have constantly exceeded their drawing limit thereby attracting penal charges as laid down in the agreement entered between the Parties.