ICICI BANK LTD vs R S MURUGESAN

-THE opposite parties in O. P. No. 51/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvarur are the appellants herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: Based on the advertisement which appeared in "the Hindu" regarding grant of personal loan to medical practitioners at confessional rate of interest viz. , 10. 5% for Rs. 10 lakh, the representatives of the opposite parties viz. , Mr. Rajkumar and Mr. Bharathi approached the complainant. Based on the assurance given by them the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs. 5 lakh on 30. 12. 2002. Subsequently in February 2003 the complainant received a communication dated 13. 2. 2003 from the opposite parties revising the rate of interest from 10. 5% to 20%. The complainant objected to this demand. There was no response from the opposite parties, necessitating the filing of the complaint.

THE 1st opposite party was set ex parte. The 2nd opposite party claimed that the loan was not disbursed by them and the complainant was not entitled to any relief that the District Forum had no jurisdiction that the transaction was a loan transaction that there was no deficiency in service and that, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. Before the District Forum on the side of the complainant, Exs. A1 to A10 were marked while no document was produced on the side of the opposite parties.

The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant and by order dated 10. 10. 2003 directed the opposite parties to charge only 10. 5% as interest from the complainant, to pay Rs. 4,000 as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant, together with a sum of Rs. 2,000 as costs. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

THE learned Counsel for the opposite parties/appellants vehemently submitted that proper parties had not been impleaded; that the Manager of ICICI Bank, Pattukottai had absolutely nothing to do with the transaction, nor did the 1st opposite party ICICI Bank, Mumbai. Again, the transaction was a mere loan transaction; that the bank was entitled to revise the rate of interest if circumstances warranted the same; that in any event it was only a loan transaction and no deficiency in service could be attributed to the opposite parties. Per contra, Mr. V. Balaji, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the persons who canvassed for advancing the loan were from the Pattukottai office of the opposite party viz. , one Rajkumar who claimed to be the Marketing Executive of ICICI Bank, Pattukottai that having held out and assured that the rate of interest would be only 10. 5% the bank was not at all justified in going back on that and attempting to charge 20% rate of interest. The learned Counsel further submitted that the complainant had paid the entire amount due as per the agreement between the parties with interest at 10. 5% p. a. and the opposite parties were not at all justified in stipulating a higher rate of interest.

ONE of the points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the complainant had not produced the agreement between the parties. The agreement should have been signed by both the parties and the bank should have had one copy of it with them which they could very well have produced which they did not do. It has been held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1968 SC 1413, that the parties having possession of documents could not refuse to produce them on the ground that the onus or burden of proving was on the other side. The opposite party bank should have had copies of the loan document and they could very well have produced the document before the District Forum in support of their contention. But this they did not do. The District Forum, in our view, rightly found that it had jurisdiction; that the opposite party bank had gone back on their earlier assurance and commitment with regard to the rate of interest and that they were not justified in doing that. In an identical situation, in Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India and Anr. v. Smt. Renu Mehrotra, II (2002) CPJ 278, the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh has held that in a case where the complainant was not informed about the revision of rate of interest at any time from the date of release of the loan till the date of repayment with entire interest and when excess interest was never mutually agreed upon between the parties, it was unfair on the part of the opposite parties in that to claim excess interest. The facts in the present case are slightly different in that the rate of interest was sought to be revised two monhts after the grant of the loan. In other respects the facts are identical. We respectfully agree with the decision by the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh. We do not find any merit whatsoever in the appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.