STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.422 of 2016

Date of Institution: 01.06.2016

Date of Reserve : 19.05.2017

Date of Decision : 02.06.2017

1. Prem Singh Badwal son of Late Shri Piara Singh, resident of

H.No.565, Gali No.3, Guru Angad Nagar, Nawanshahr.

2. Surinder Kaur Badwal wife of Prem Singh Badwal, resident of

H.No.565, Gali No.3, Guru Angad Nagar, Nawanshahr.

……Appellants/Complainants

Versus

1. ICICI Bank Limited, Registered Office “Landmark” Race Course

Circle, Vadodra, 390007 through its Managing Director / Chief

Executive Officer.

2. ICICI Bank Limited, Banga Road, Nawanshahr, through its

Branch Manager.

…..Respondents/opposite parties

First Appeal against the order dated

04.05.2016

of

the

District

Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, SBS Nagar.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President

Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

Present:-

For the appellants : Sh.A.S.Gill, Advocate

For the respondents

: Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate

HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM, MEMBER

The appellants / complainants (hereinafter referred to as

‘complainants’) have filed the present appeal against the order dated

04.05.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘District

Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.103 dated 09.09.2015 vide which

their complaint was dismissed.

2. Brief facts as stated in their complaint filed by Prem Singh

Badwal son of Late Shri Piara Singh and Surinder Kaur Badwal wife

of Prem Singh Badwal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the opposite parties.

First Appeal No.422 of 2016

As per the averments it is averred that on the allurement of the

Branch Manager of opposite party No.2 they applied for a home loan,

which was sanctioned to them for `10,00,000/- on 23.05.2005 to be

paid in 141 monthly instalments of `11,741/- and the last instalment

was to be paid on 07.04.2017. It was averred that complainant No.1

being principal borrower and complainant No.2 was taken as co-

applicant. They were given to understand that there were no grey

areas in the loan sanctioned to them. It was pleaded that repayment

schedule was not provided at the time of disbursement of the loan but

the same was provided in the year 2007. It has been pleaded that

EMIs were paid religiously and diligently. When the complainant

approached opposite party No.2 for foreclosure of their loan account

then they were informed that their loan account could not be

foreclosed by calculating the monthly instalments due upto 2017 but it

needs to be calculated upto 2023. They were informed by the Bank

that their account stands reworked by their Jalandhar Head Office

and they would be required to pay the instalment upto 2023, if they

desire to foreclose the loan account. The above information regarding

their loan account provided by opposite party-Bank came as a shock

to them. It was averred that no notice about the change in terms and

conditions were ever conveyed to them by the opposite parties. They

were not informed about the change in interest rates. Thus, the

opposite parties were deficient in service and they gave

representation to them to rectify the same. On failure to get any

favourable response from them, they were left with no option but to

file the consumer complaint in the District Forum and sought

directions to be issued against the opposite parties; to set right their

First Appeal No.422 of 2016

account as per repayment schedule provided to them; to pay

damages of `1,00,000/- on account of causing mental agony and

harassment and also to pay `25,000/- as legal costs.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties filed their reply and took

preliminary

objections

that

the

present

complaint

was

no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document