A consumer complaint regarding alleged excessive interest is unsupported if the second agreement is unexecuted and the original terms are upheld.

1. The respondent / complainant took a housing loan of Rs. 2,90,000 from the petitioner ICICI Bank and executed at loan agreement dated 1.3.2005, incorporating the terms and conditions including the interest payable on the said loan. The interest clause contained in the said loan, reads as under:
E Interest
(a) ICICI Bank Floating Reference rate 8.25% per annum (as on the date of executing of this agreement)
(b) Adjustable Rate of interest : ICICI Bank Floating Reference Rate +“ .75% p.a.= 7.5% p.a.
(c) Ore - EMI Interest 7.5% per annum
F. EMI is calculated on the basis of monthly rests.
On behalf of the bank the loan agreement was signed by its authorized signatory whereas both the borrowers namely Ramakant Gaikwad and Kesarb Bai Gaikward signed the said agreement.

2. The case of the complainant / respondent is that when he noticed that the interest charged by the bank was exorbitant he contacted the Bank Manager, who promised to charge interest @ 10.5% per annum for next two years and accordingly, the second loan agreement was executed between the parties on 6.2.2015. Alleging charging excess interest from him, the complainant / respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking return of the alleged excess interest along with compensation.

3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank, which inter alia stated that the interest had been rightly charged and recovered as per the Floating Rate of interest.

4. The District Forum vide its order dated 8.12.2015 directed the petitioner bank to apply rate of interest at 7.5% per annum, prepare the account accordingly, supply the statement of account to the complainant and not charge additional rate of interest from him. A sum of Rs. 2,000 was also awarded as cost of litigation and compensation to the complainant.

5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 8.2.2017, the petitioner bank is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

6. It would be seen from the interest clause contained in the Loan Agreement executed on 1.3.2005, that the borrowers were liable to pay adjustable rate of interest, which meant ICICI Bank Floating Reference Rate minus .75% per annum. It also shows that at the time of execution of the said loan agreement, ICICI Floating Reference Rate was 8.25% per annum and therefore, the adjustable rate of interest came to 7.5% per annum. The loan agreement also shows that the EMI was to be calculated on the basis of monthly rests. As is evident from its name itself, the Floating Reference Rate of bank is not a fixed rate and can be changed by the bank from time - to - time. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the petitioner bank could not have charged interest at a rate higher than 7.5% per annum. The interest payable by the complainant and his co - borrower being linked to the ICICI Bank Floating Reference Rate, it was to increase as and when the ICICI Bank Floating Reference Rate was increased and it was to decrease if and when the ICICI Bank Floating Reference Rate was decreased. This is not the case of the complainant that the interest charged by him was more than the adjustable rate of interest i.e. ICICI Bank Floating Reference Rate minus 75% per annum. His contention that the bank could not have charged interest at a rate higher than 7.5% per annum has absolutely no merit.

7. As regards the execution of the second loan agreement, a perusal of the copy of the said agreement would show that it was n