IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 04.02.2010 Date of hearing: 07.02.2022 Date of Decision: 28.02.2022 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 30/2010 IN THE MATTER OF

1. DR. PARAM HANS MISHRA, S/o Shri. Ram Lakhan Mishra

2. MRS. TRIPTI MISHRA, W/o Dr. Param Hans Mishra, Both R/o 12-A, Citizen Enclave, Sector-14 Extension, Rohini, Delhi-110085.

(Through: Mr. D.S. Dalal & Associates)

…Complainants VERSUS ICICI BANK Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi.

(Through: Mr. Kapoor and Co.)

… Opposite Party CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE SH. RAJAN SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the Parties.

PER: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking the following reliefs:-

“a. Direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 60000/- which has been charge as pre-payment charges at the time of foreclosure of loan;

b. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5000/- towards the less payment made at the time of refund the EMI which was not due;

c. Compensation of Rupees forty lakhs be awarded for loss of reputation and mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant;

d. Direct the opposite party to remove the name of the complainants from CIBIL;

e. Cost of the complaint also be awarded to the complainant;

f. Any other relief that this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the complainant in the facts and circumstances mentioned above.”

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainants obtained three different home loans from the opposite party of Rs. 17,28,000/- vide sanction letter dated 22.02.2005, Rs. 8,64,000/- vide sanction letter dated 22.02.2005 and of Rs. 5,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 05.04.2006. The initial floating rate of interest was 7% which was increased to 11.5% during the course of loan repayment. The complainants were initially paying their cheques of EMI drawn at Syndicate Bank, as complainant no. 1 was working as Dy. M.S. in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and his salary was credited directly to the bank account in Syndicate Bank but during the course of repayment of loan, complainant no. 1 left the services of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and joined Max, Rajiv Gandhi, Sahara & ISIC Hospital as Medical Superintendent and the salary account was opened in the ICICI Bank which was duly intimated by the Complainant no. 1 to the Opposite Party. Despite that, the Opposite Party kept on sending the EMI ECS to Syndicate Bank which was returned back with a remark ‘Insufficient Funds’ and the complainants were forced to make the payment of bouncing cheques as well as the late fees for not depositing EMI on time. The default on the part of opposite party had adversely affected their reputation and credit worthiness. Allegedly, the consequences of the wrongful reporting of the credit history by the Opposite Party was borne by the Complainant No.1 when he subsequently applied for Credit Facility/Loan with different banks, which denied to enhance the Credit Limit of the Complainant no. 1 and also refused to give any fresh loan to the Complainant No. 1.

3. After various requests from different banks, on 2^nd February, 2008, the complainants got a loan approved from the HDFC Bank and he subsequently paid the entire outstanding amount due against the 3 loans including the bouncing penalty charges amounting Rs. 3600/- and the pre-payment charges amounting Rs. 60,000/- to the opposite party. Even after the repayment of the all the three loans, the opposite party kept on deducting the EMI from the respective accounts of the complainants. The notice was sent to the Opposite party regarding the refund of the EMI which was wrongly deducted from their account but only an amount of Rs. 25000/- out of 30,000/- was refunded by the opposite party. The complainants further stated that despi