Additional Bench

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.752 of 2019

Date of institution : 20.11.2019

Reserved on : 08.10.2021

Date of decision : 28.10.2021

1. ICICI Bank through its Branch Manager/Authorized Officer, SCO

112, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

2. ICICI Bank (Regd. Office), through its authorized signatory

“Landmark” Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007.

….Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

1. Smt. Satnam Kaur Anand D/o Sh. Mohinder Singh Nagpal,

resident of H.No.323, Medical Enclave, Circular Road, Amritsar.

2. Kulwinderjit Singh Anand S/o Man Singh Anand, resident of

H.No.323, Medical Enclave, Circular Road, Amritsar-98157-

28500.

…..Respondents/Complainants

First Appeal against the order dated

22.05.2019 passed by the District Consumer

Disputes

Redressal

Forum

(now

‘Commission’), Amritsar.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be

allowed to see the Judgment?

Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

Argued by:-

For the appellants : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate

First Appeal No.752 of 2019

2

For the respondents : Sh. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate

……………………………………………………………………….

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT

The complaint was filed by the respondents/complainants

before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in

short, now the ‘District Commission’) which was allowed and the

following directions were issued to the appellants/opposite parties (in

short ‘OPs’):-

“10. Consequently, we allow the complaint and the opposite

parties are directed to charge the interest at the agreed rate of

interest i.e. 10.5% p.a. from the borrower/complainant and

recasted statement of account be issued to the complainant

within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the

order. As the complainant has been charged for the last ten year

@ upto 15% instead of 10.5% as such in case any excess

amount has been charged by the opposite party then that

amount will be refunded to the complainant. As admittedly the

complainant has paid 120 installments leaving behind only 60

installments, as such the complainant is only entitled to make

payment of the balance 60 installments to the tune of

Rs.13,762/- each. Opposite party is further directed to pay

Rs.10000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as

litigation expenses.”

2.

Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the appellants/OPs

have filed the present appeal before this Commission. Learned

counsel

for

the

appellants

has

submitted

that

the

respondents/complainants were well aware and were having full

knowledge of change of rate of interest from the date of signing of the

loan agreement. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement,

they availed the home loan on adjustable rate of interest. The

First Appeal No.752 of 2019

3

respondents/complainants even admitted in the complaint itself that “in

case rate of interest increases or decreases, then monthly installment

will increase or decrease” but the District Commission has ignored this

fact while allowing the complaint. Said home loan was availed in the

year 2007 and the respondents/complainants did not raise any

objection at any point of time on reducing and increasing rate of

interest by the appellants/OPs, as per terms of loan agreement. It has

been further argued that the impugned order passed by the District

Commission is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Learned

counsel has relied upon judgments of cases titled as “Khatri Hotels

Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. Union of India” 2011(9)SCC-126, “ICICI

Bank Ltd. V

Click Here to Read the rest of this document