NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member
Nirmal Kumar Pandey —Petitioner
Versus
ICICI Bank Limited & Anr. — Respondents
Revision Petition No. 4782 of 2013 & Revision Petition No. 4783 of 2013
Decided on 11.8.2020

IMPORTANT POINT
Bank is bound by Banking Act and Regulations and has to function under guidelines of RBI.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 51]—Banking—Housing loan—Charging of higher interest without any notice and without obtaining consent—Demand of huge amount towards foreclosure—Complainant knew his own interest quite well and was willing to consider change of Banks for his loans—Complainant was a discerning consumer—Bank is bound by Banking Act and Regulations and has to function under guidelines of RBI—Agreements on record are not customized documents; rather, they are standard documents and would apply to all similarly situated customers—OP-Bank has been able to show that Amendatory Agreement had only executed what complainant had himself desired by way of hand written notes recorded by concerned bank official on body of Amendatory Agreement—Floating interest rate regime was opted by complainant in first instance and again, when performing switch to take advantage of lower interest rate—To have opted for switch and thereafter to allege unfairness in interest rate charged by OP is hardly tenable—Revision Petitions dismissed.

Held: The complainant has not been able to show how the OP bank had indulged in any unfair trade practice and had charged him higher rate of interest than that provided in the Agreement. It is an admitted position that the complainant’s existing loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. was taken over by the OP bank from 24.2.2004. Notably, this was at the complainant’s instance. It has not been stated anywhere as to why the complainant opted for the OP-Bank; whatever be the reason, it is self evident that the complainant must have found it to be advantageous in switching to the OP Bank. After this, however, it would appear that he was less than satisfied with the OP-Bank, and there is a mention in the complaint petition that he wanted to foreclose and switch to another Bank offering lower interest rate but could not do so because the OP-Bank wanted high foreclosure charges. It is quite clear therefore that the complainant knew his own interest quite well and was willing to consider change of Banks for his loans. The complainant was therefore a discerning consumer. It is also clear that he admittedly did not get the benefit he thought he would get from the OP-Bank, and hence, he filed a consumer complaint.

The OP bank, on the other hand, has taken a clear defence in it’s statement that whatever was done in respect of the loan account was in terms of the two agreements between the complainant and the OP bank. Indeed, OP Bank could not have done otherwise: it is bound by the Banking Act and Regulations and has to function under the guidelines of the RBI. The Agreements on record are not customized documents; rather, they are standard documents and would apply to all similarly situated customers. The OP-Bank has been able to show that the Amendatory Agreement had only executed what the complainant had himself desired by way of the hand written notes recorded by the concerned bank official on the body of the Amendatory Agreement (Ann. P-8, page 102). The State Commission had appreciated this point and had therefore set aside the order of the District Forum, resulting in dismissal of the complaint. After a careful perusal of the record, I am also of the considered view that nothing has been done in the transactions highlighted by the complainant that would show unfairness of the OP in handling of the complainant’s loan account. Admittedly, a floating interest rate regime was opted by the complainant in the first instance and again, when performing the switch to take advantage of lower interest rate. To have opted for the switch and thereafter to allege unfairness in the interest rate charged by the OP is hardly tenable. At least, apart from averring that when he checked his account statement, he found that interest rates had been increased on several occasions, and that he had to pay a switch fee which was promised to be credited back, there is no other allegation. As for the first allegation, the statement of account clearly shows a fluctuating rate of interest (7.25% to 13.75%) but then, the loan scheme was on floating interest rate basis; around April 2009, the complainant opted to switch and this did result in lower interest rate. As for the second, a switch fee was charged because the OP-Bank was providing a service. The complainant should not have opted for the switch. His averment that he was misled has not been backed by any evidence.

In view of the discussion above, both these revision petitions are dismissed. The impugned orders of the State Commission are accordingly upheld. No order as to costs. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)

Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.