IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 15.01.2026 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.04.2026 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 66 OF 2009 1. Rohit Bajaj, S/o Sri Ramashanker Bajaj 2. Mohit Bajaj, S/o Sri Ramashanker Bajaj 3. Umashankar Bajaj, S/o Sri Sitaram Bajaj 4. Indra Bajaj, W/o Sri Ramashanker Bajaj

5. Anita Bajaj, W/o Sri Umashanker Bajaj

6. Neetu Bajaj, W/o Mohit Bajaj Address of all the above : 7th Floor, Trinity Plaza, 84/1 A, Topsia Road, Kolkata -

700046.

7. Saurav Bajaj, S/o Umashankar Bajaj, Grandson of Lt. Sitaram Bajaj, substituted vide order dated 17.04.2023 R/o Bajaj Kutir, 11-Rajendra Nagar, Patna - 800016.

8.NMLRKJaIHmGaFsEhDaCnBkAar Bajaj, S/o Lt. Sri Sitaram Bajaj R/o : 7th Floor, Trinity Plaza, 84/1 A, Topsia Road, Kolkata - 700046.

... Complainants Versus

1. ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051.

2. Mr. K.V Kamath, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai -400051.

3. Mr. Neelakantan Pillai, Business Head - Loan Against Securities, ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051.

4. Mr. Bhaskar Mukherjee, Business Representative (LAS), ICICI Bank Ltd., Shanti Niketan Building, 3rd Floor, Bistupur, Jamshedpur - 831001.

... Opposite Parties BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER For the Complainants Mr. Devashish Bharuk, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravi Bharuka, Mr. Shashank Chamoli, Ms. Soumya & Ms. Yashaswi Agarwal, Advocates For the Opposite Parties Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Goel, Ms. Sreeparna Basak, Ms. Sharen Joel & Mr. Anoop George, Advocates

ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA. MEMBER

1.

Heard Mr. Devashish Bharuk, Sr. Advocate for the Complainant and Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Advocate for the OP Bank. By way of present complaint, complainants have challenged the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP bank in failure to honour their promise and assurance of enhancing the drawing limit at a regular interval of six months so as to absorb the interest accruing on the loan taken by the complainants from the OP Bank towards purchase of KVPs as per the Bank's obligation under the contract between the parties

2. Brief facts of the case and the contentions raised by Senior counsels for the both the parties have been discussed, in detail, in the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by this Commission, which is reproduced below:MLKJIHGFEDCBA

1. Heard Sr. Advocates Mr. Devashish Bharuka for the complainants and Mr. Joy Basu for the OP Bank. The complaint is filed by nine complainants who have grievance/complaint of deficient service of the OP ICICI Bank arising from the same composite transaction. The complaint arises from a transaction between the complainants and the OP Bank of obtaining loan for investment in Kisan Vikas Patra, the repayment of such loan with interest on monthly basis as also the issue of periodic increase in the drawing limits of loan to meet the monthly interest liability through correspondingly increased drawing limit and loan. The primary relief claimed in the present complaint is with regard to the deficiency qua not enhancing the drawing limits though agreed between the parties and thereupon levying penal interest for default in repayment of loan which, as per the complainant, arose only on account of non-enhancing of drawing limits and not advancing corresponding further loan which was in violation of the concluded contract between the parties. Drawing our attention to Annexure A-9 and A-10, it is contended that after discussions and exchange of emails, the Bank agreed that the drawing limit is to be enhanced at 5% of face value of KVPs every 6 months as per the table on page 68. However, the Bank, from Feb-2008 onwards did not enhance the drawing limit as agreed which failure of the Bank resulted into purported overdrawal of amounts by the complainant which in turn resulted in the levy of 2%