BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.692 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.309 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT
Between:
Yarlagadda Suguna Mani, rep. by
her Power of Attorney Holder
Y.Krishna Murthy S/o Seetha Ramaiah
R/o Governorpeta, Vijayawada
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. ICICI Bank rep. by its Manager
Home Finance Co., Ltd.,
5-14-8m, 1st Floor, Shilpa Arcade
Gayatri Nagar, Ring road,
Vijayawada-008
2. ICICI Bank, rep. by its Authorized Signatory
ICICI Bank Towers, Regional Office
HL Collection, 180+DPD, Level-6,
Tower 2 North Wing, Gachibowli
Hydeabad-032 Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants M/s C.R.Vasanth Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents M/s P.V.Aruna Kumari
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The brief facts as seen from the complaint are that on 25.10.2005 the complainant had availed home loan of `24,85,000/- along with her husband and daughter from the opposite party. The amount is repayable in 120 equal monthly instalments at the rate of `33,532/- and the interest chargeable was 10.5% p.a. After paying 43 instalments, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to reschedule the loan. The 1st opposite party promised to reschedule the loan payment schedule and requested her to pay some lump sum amount. Accordingly the complainant paid money. The 1st opposite party failed to reschedule the loan. The complainant could not pay instalments. She addressed letter to the 1st opposite party to furnish detailed account copy to enable her to discharge her loan at the agreed rate of interest. There was no response from the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties demanded for repayment of loan claiming interest @28% p.a. on the outstanding amount and also claimed other extra amounts contrary to the terms of the agreement. Therefore, the complaint is filed for refund of the excess interest and for compensation.
3. The opposite parties resisted the case contending that the loan was availed by the husband of the complainant. It is not a home loan and the loan for home equity and office purposes. The complainant and her daughters are the co-applicants. The complainant suppressed the facts. The husband of the complainant committed default in making payment of instalments. The loan account was declared as NPA long ago due to such default. The opposite party initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act. A notice of demand was made under Section 13 (2) of that Act for discharge of the loan
Back
