Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, CJ, MR. DINESH SINGH, J
PARVIN JUNEJA – Appellant
Versus
ICICI BANK LTD. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint on loan repayment issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. application filed for interim protection. (Para 3) |
| 3. court affirming bank's position pending complaint. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 4. balance of convenience favors bank. (Para 8 , 9) |
PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Brief facts: The complainant Mr. Pravin Juneja availed home loan sanctioned by the ICICI Bank (OP) for a sum of Rs. 74,00,000/- for a period of 10 years (120 months) qua a property located in Greater Kailash. The monthly instalment fixed was Rs. 93,741/- as the EMI. The loan was to end in February, 2015. The complainant alleged that he kept on paying the EMIs even after the stipulated time period on the demand of the OP. The complainant requested for a no due certificate, upon which he learnt that the OP was charging exorbitant rate of interest on the loan and it was at floating rate and not as per the rate agreed. The complainant had to pay Rs. 1,18,24,421/- instead of Rs. 1,12,48,920/-. The complainant paid an excessive amount of Rs. 5,75,501/- to the OP. Being aggrieved, a complaint was filed on 05.04.2016 before the State Commission. After filing the complaint, the OP bank issued a demand let
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
