Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and
Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Triloki Nath Singla and Anr. – Complainants
versus
ICICI Bank and Ors. – Opp. Parties
First Appeal No.550 of 2013
[From the Order dated 21.06.2013 in CC No. 64/2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh]
Decided on 1.9.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Ms. Sagun Srivastava and Arjun Garg, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Sandeep Suri, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Provision of Section 24A of 1986 Act mandate observance of limitation period unless sufficient cause with a reasonable explanation is available for condoning delay to be recorded with reasons by Commission.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24-A – Banking – Housing Loan – Charging of interest at fluctuating rates – Complaint dismissed by State Commission – Continuing cause of action – Provision of Section 24A of 1986 Act mandate observance of limitation period unless sufficient cause with a reasonable explanation is available for condoning delay to be recorded with reasons by Commission – Payments of EMIs gave rise to cause of action and were continuing – Cause of action was a challenge to fluctuating rate of interest being charged by Bank on contention that it was a breach of RBI guidelines – Obligation cast on Banks was that in order to ensure transparency, Banks should continue to provide information on maximum and minimum interest rates charged together with the Benchmark PLR – There is no attempt on part of Complainants to seek any clarification from Reserve Bank of India about allegations of excessive charge by Respondent Bank – Alleged injury by Complainants or alleged wrong as complained by them, existed in agreement itself – Complaint was filed after three years. (Paras 27, 29, 31, 44, 48, 51, 52 and 53)
Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

A.P. Sahi, President—The Complainants/Appellants are husband and wife, who availed of a housing loan facility from the Opposite Party Bank under an agreement dated 18.12.2006. The said loan was sanctioned and disbursed on 20.12.2006. The loan was for Rs.1 Crore and as per the Complainants, the rate of interest was 10.25% with a repayment period of 120 months with an EMI of Rs.1,33,539/-.

2. The Bank claimed interest at fluctuating rates which the Complainants allege was contrary to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and was in excess of the amount agreed upon. On account of this dispute with regard to the rate of interest as charged, the Complainants allege that they represented the matter, but to no avail and in spite of repeated requests since the Bank refused to respond, CC No. 64 of 2012 was instituted on 03.12.2012 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh alleging deficiency praying for the following reliefs:—

(a) Make the Payment of the sum of Rs.26,12,243/- as on 10.10.2012 and further excess charges/interest to the complainants along with interest @ 18% per annum from the respective dates of charging till actual dates of payment;

(b) Make the payment of the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- EACH to the complainants on account of their continuous harassment, humiliation and mental agony caused to them by the Opposite Parties;

Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances be issued in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties.

3. The Complaint was resisted by the Bank contending that the Bank is entitled to charge the adjustable interest rate as per the ICICI Bank’s Floating Reference Rate that is governed by the Benchmark Prime Lending Rates (BPLR) decided by the Board of Directors of the Bank duly authorized by the Reserve Bank of India guidelines. The Bank maintained that the Reserve Bank of India guidelines as referred to, including the guidelines circulated vide Master Circular dated 02.07.2007, clearly provide full autonomy to the Bank in the matter of prescribing such rates as may be decided by the Bank, subject to the Reserve Bank of India guidelines and as agreed to in the Loan Agreement. The Bank took a stand that there was no breach of the guidelines and the rates of interest charged was in consonance of the terms of the agreement and the loan schedule that was well known to the Complainants Appellants, as such the complaint was totally misguided and misplaced and ought to be dismissed.

4. The bank also took the plea of the complaint being barred by limitation in as much as the loan had been sanctioned way back in the year 2006 and was also acted upon by the Complainants Appellants, who continued to pay the easy monthly instalments so long as the rates of interest suited them and then when the fluctuating rates went slightly on the increase, the complaint was filed in the year 2013, which was heavily barred by time and therefore the complaint ought not to have been entertained in terms of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5. The State Commission even though returned a finding on limitation in favour of the Appellants, yet on merits it came to the conclusion that none of the contentions raised were tenable holding that the Complainants were fully aware and were duly put to notice regarding the rates of interest charged from them. After discussing details with regard to the applicability of the Reserve Bank of India guidelines and circulars as well as the various clauses of the Agreement, it came to the conclusion that once the Agreement is executed between the Parties, the terms and conditions of loans were clearly settled and held that the contention of the Complainants for applying the Base rate as per the circular dated 01.07.2010 was unacceptable as the loan had been taken