Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S. M. Kantikar (Presiding Member), *Binoy Kumar (Member)
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Sudhakar Venkatesh
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial loan agreement terms and associated facts are critical in determining liability. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. respondent's entitlement to challenge unilateral changes made by the lender. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. lender's failure to maintain clear communication constitutes deficiency of service. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court's decision mandates restoration of original loan terms. (Para 20) |
1. This First Appeal No. 762 of 2020 under S.51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenges the order dated 31.7.2019 passed by Honble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, the Stale Commission) in CC No. 46 of 2016, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed with a direction that the Opposite Party / Appellant Bank, to reverse entries and restore the terms of the house loan dated 29.3.2006 along with payment of Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony and inconvenience.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent / Complainant is a Non Resident Indian who availed a Housing Loan of Rs. 40,00,000 under Non - Resident Indian Loan Scheme at a ˜Fixed Rate of Interest @8.5% repayable in 120 month
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
