Shri Mallinath Ramchandra Mhamane, Solapur Vs. the Manager, Icici Bank, Solapur - Court Judgment

Oral Order:

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 19/11/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.181/2008 Shri Mallinath Ramchandra Mhamane V/s. ICICI Bank Home Finance Company Ltd. by District Consumer Forum Solapur (‘Forum below in short).

Appellant/complainant had taken a housing loan of Rs.3 Lakhs from Global Housing Finance Co. Ltd. (in short ‘GHFCL) as per agreement dated 24/08/2001. He had paid some E.M.Is. as agreed. Thereafter, GHFCL was merged with respondent/O.P.-ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. Supplementary Agreement dated 22/08/2003 was accordingly executed by the appellant in favour O.P. Thereafter, dispute arose regarding terms of said supplementary agreement and about foreclosure of the loan account. A consumer complaint was accordingly filed on 27/06/2008.

Consumer complaint was resisted by the O.P. on the ground of limitation and also denied that there is any deficiency on their part as alleged. They also denied that any consumer complaint in the given circumstances lie against them. In addition to it, it is submitted on their behalf that the complaint is filed not disclosing true facts. Complainant is a defaulter and did not give any response to their notice/letter demanding the arrears. With these submissions, they prayed for dismissal of complaint.

Upholding the contentions on both the counts raised by the O.P., complaint stood dismissed. Feeling aggrieved thereby, org. complainant has preferred this appeal.

Notice is waived for respondent/org. O.P. by Advocate Ms.Sheetal Patil. Appeal is admitted and heard forthwith. Appellant-Mr.Mallinath Ramchandra Mhamane is heard in person and also heard Ms.Sheetal Patil, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the papers.

In the instant case, there is novation of contract in the form of supplementary agreement dated 22/08/2003 and therefore, relations between the parties are governed by the same. It is not a case of the complainant that said agreement was got executed from him under pressure, etc. It is not that under duress, he has executed the same. With full knowledge and voluntarily when he had executed said agreement, it is not permissible to him not to raise any dispute about the amount shown as due or the terms agreed upon for repayment of loan under the said supplementary agreement. Moreover, in the given circumstances, dispute as to those stipulations in the agreement cannot be a matter of any consumer dispute. From the written statement of respondent/O.P. it could be seen that the appellant/complainant failed to repay the loan as agreed and he is a defaulter. After 01/06/2003 appellant/complainant did not pay any amount. His insistence that the interest and penalty charged should be waived, is the discretion of O.P. and therefore, if such request was not accepted, then there cannot be any deficiency in service. Similarly, in the alleged grievance of the complainant that he was asking O.P. to foreclose loan account, but in vein, we find no substance in it. But, even if it is true, considering the terms for foreclosure put by appellant/complainant, even if respondent/O.P. did not agree to it, it will not give any rise to a consumer dispute based upon restricted trade practice or deficiency in service. Learned Forum below rightly held so. Similarly, if there is any grievance as to the terms of the supplementary agreement, supra, consumer complaint filed is clearly barred by limitation. Generally, we find ourselves in agreement with Forum below on this count also.

Thus, finding this appeal devoid of any substance, following order is passed :-

Order:

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. In the given circumstance, there is no order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.