such information on a Bankwebsite of will be treated as deemed notice National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) said in a historic decision, which will have an impact on the bank-customer relationship.
Chairperson Member of NCDRC Dinesh Singh And member Karuna Nand Bajpai, while setting aside a state consumer court order, which was to the contrary, said that “a bank can increase or decrease the rate of interest under the floating interest rate as provided in the loan agreement executed between the banks”. Is.” and no additional or further consent was required from the complainant (borrower) and the latter, the same was already agreed to in the loan agreement.”
“…conclusions of deficient or inappropriate Business The practice on the part of the bank cannot continue,” it held ICICI Bank Vs Vishnu Bansal case. The NCDRC also said that the bank did careful research in the matter and pointed out the dates of placing the relevant notifications on its website and the dates of sending reset letters to the complainant, even though they pertain to the period 2006 to 2008.
However, the bank through its counsel Sumit Goyal told the Commission that it was ready to pay ₹1 lakh to the complainant as a gesture of goodwill and service without any ‘shortcoming’ or admission of ‘unfair trade practice’ or concession. The National Consumer Forum also directed the State Commission to release the amount deposited by the bank with interest to the complainant.
An appeal can be made against the order of the National Commission Supreme court,
The decision came on an appeal by ICICI Bank against a Delhi Consumer Commission order in May last year, which said banks cannot make changes. home loan Automatic change of interest rates and interest rates without the consent of the borrowers amounts to “unfair trade practice”.
The State Forum had also made it mandatory that whenever home loan interest rates are being changed under the floating rate of interest plan, it is necessary to take the consent of the banks. ICICI Bank appealed against this order in the National Forum.
ICICI Bank argued that the Rate of interest And the number of equated monthly installments was increased only in accordance with the loan agreement which provided floating rate of interest and the complainant had signed the same after reading, understanding and agreeing to its contents.
The bank increased or decreased the rate based on its uniform policy in this regard and was applicable to all equally placed borrowers including Bansal.
ICICI Bank’s counsel Goyal further argued that the observation of the State Commission that raising the rate of interest was an ‘unfair trade practice’ is clearly bad both in fact and in law and is wholly unwarranted and should be categorically quashed. should be done.
However, the complainant stated that had the bank informed him about the increase in interest rates and EMIs, he would have taken steps to shift his loan to another bank with a lower rate of interest.