ORDER

1.      Heard Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Advocate, for the complainants, Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advocate, for opposite party-1 and Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate, for opposite parties-2 and 3. 

2.      Mr. Anil Lale and Mrs. Bidushi Handique Lale have filed above complaint for quashing demand notices dated 31.05.2019, 20.06.2019, 23.07.2019, 20.08.2019 and Loan Recall Notice dated 07.10.2019, issued by ICICI Bank Limited and directing ICICI Bank Limited to (i) follow the terms and conditions as envisaged in revised home loan sanction letters dated 22.07.2013 and 28.08.2013, (ii) pay Rs. one crore, as compensation for loss of reputation, (iii) pay Rs.25/- lakhs, as the compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iv) pay Rs.10/- lakhs, as the costs of the litigation; and (v) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts of the case.

3.      The complainants stated that ICICI Bank Limited (opposite party-1) (the bank) was a banking company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of providing loans against property, home loans, financial assistance etc. to the general public. Rajesh Lifespaces Private Limited and Rajsanket Realty Limited (opposite parties-2 and 3) (the builders) were the companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in business of development and construction of housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builders launched a group housing project in the name of “Raj Infinia”, at CTS No.307/66/A, village Valnai, Taluqa Borivali, Mumbai, in 2013 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. They advertised that the flats could be purchased under “subvention scheme”. On inquiry, Mr. Rananjay Singh, the authorised representatives of the builders and Mr. Gaurav Wig, an officer of the bank, informed that the project was jointly offered by the bank and the builders and as per “subvention scheme”, 20% of sale consideration had to pay by the buyer and 80% by the bank; and the builders would pay EMI on the bank loan, for a period of 36 months or till offer of possession, whichever was later. “Subvention scheme” was available only on the home loan taken from the bank. Mr. Afsar Sheikh, Sr. Branch Sales Manager-Mortgages of the bank, vide email dated 14.06.2013, informed that the bank was funding the project “Raj Infinia” in the ratio of 80:20. Allured with “subvention scheme”, the complainants applied for home loan on 27.06.2013. The bank sanctioned Rs.19445303/- on 27.06.2013 as home loan. In sanction letter dated 27.06.2013, condition-6 was mentioned as “This loan was under developer subvention scheme for the period of 36 months.” The complainants gave emails to Mr. Rananjay Singh, the authorised representatives of the builders and Mr. Gaurav Wig, an officer of the bank, raising their protest against the condition as mentioned in the sanction letter. Then Mr. Gaurav Wig, vide email dated 23.07.2013, informed that the loan was under developer’s subvention scheme for the period of 36 months or possession, whichever is later. Satisfying with the revised sanction letter, the complainants decided to purchase Flat No.1211, in “C” Wing and deposited Rs.4861325/- towards 20% of sale consideration with the builders and Rs.75000/- towards loan processing fee with the bank on 01.08.2013. The bank asked to sign blank documents including standard format of loan agreement (Facility Agreement) on 22.08.2013, without allowing to read it. In columns-8 and 9, (relating to due date of commencement of EMI and payment of first EMI), “PD” (Possession Date) were mentioned. The bank issued a Revised Home Loan Sanction Letter on 28.08.2013, in which, attached Terms and Conditions contained Condition-6 as “This loan is under developer’s subvention scheme for the period of 36 months or till possession, whichever is later.” The bank issued letter dated 30.08.2013, for disbursing Rs.18338903/- to the builders. The bank gave cheque no.213343 dated 31.08.