Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned interim order dated 12.07.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 362/2016, vide which, the appellant ICICI Bank had been restrained from giving effect to the demand letter dated 16.05.2016, issued by them to the complainant/respondent.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant/OP ICICI Bank and the complainant/respondent Parvin Juneja signed a home loan agreement on 29.12.2004, vide which, the complainant was sanctioned a home loan of Rs. 74 lakhs by the Bank. The loan was to be repaid in 120 Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) of Rs. 93, 741.00 each. For the security of the loan, the complainant mortgaged his property E-47, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, First Floor with the Bank. It has been stated that the tenure of repayment of the loan was increased to 201 months from 120 months by the OP Bank on their own. However, the complainant, being aggrieved on account of increase in the tenure of the repayment of loan, stopped making payments of EMI’s from January, 2016. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the Delhi State Commission on 01.04.2016, seeking directions to the OP Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 5,75,501/- to the complainant, received by the OPs as excess and also to pay interest on the said amount @ 18% per annum and a further compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs for the alleged act of increasing the tenure of the loan and charging arbitrary rate of interest, non-returning the title documents and non-issuance of the No Dues Certificate etc. A perusal of the impugned interim order says that the appellant Bank had already filed their reply before the State Commission in proceedings in the said complaint. It is also made out that the complainant moved an application for interim relief before the State Commission for restraining the OP from giving effect to their demand letter dated 16.05.2016. On 12.07.2016, the State Commission directed the appellant Bank to file reply to the said application within four weeks, with an advance copy to the complainant and listed the matter on 24.11.2016 for reply and arguments. Simultaneously, the State Commission directed that the OP Bank will not press for payment raised vide letter dated 16.05.2016. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP Bank has filed the present appeal before this Commission.

3. During hearing, the learned counsel stated that the order dated 12.07.2016 had been passed without hearing the Bank. In fact, the complainant had admitted about the floating rate of interest for the said loan rate and had not been making payment of instalments to the Bank. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the Bank had unilaterally converted the Home Loan into the Loan Against Property (LAP). The complainant had already paid excess amount to the Bank. The learned counsel stated that the complainant had already sent a letter dated 09.03.2016 to the Bank, saying that the Bank had made a mistake by changing the nomenclature of the Home Loan to Loan Against Property.

4. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

5. A perusal of the impugned interim order dated 12.07.2016 reveals that the application filed by the complainant, seeking interim relief against the OP Bank, restraining them from giving effect to the demand letter dated 16.05.2016 has already been listed for reply of the other party and arguments on 24.11.2016. It shall be fair and in the interest of justice that the said application be heard and decided by the State Commission after hearing the parties on that day itself. In any case, if the application cannot be decided on 24.11.2016, the State Commission should certain