The UT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed ICICI Bank, Chandigarh, to pay Rs 70,000 each to two consumers for not informing them about the change in rate of interest from time to time for several years.
The commission has passed the orders while deciding two appeals filed by two consumers, Rajiv Aggarwal and Kamal Goel, of Panchkula.
The consumers filed the appeals for enhancement of the compensation given by the District Consumer Commission while allowing their complaints against the bank.
They filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against ICICI Bank in over-charging interest rate and also not giving prior information about the changes in the interest rates.
The District Commission accepted the complaint and awarded Rs 7,000 as compensation and Rs 7,000 as costs of litigation.
The same compensation was given in another case filed by Kamal Goel.
Both the complainants filed an appeal before the UT State Commission for enhancement of compensation, through their advocate Pankaj Chandgothia.
The bank contended that it had informed the consumers about the changes in their loan rate of interest.
Advocate Chandgothia contended that the Bank has not produced any documentary evidence of such information nor any proof of dispatch of any such letters. It was further contended that by not giving prior information about rate changes, the bank had caused tremendous mental agony and harassment to its customers as the consumers were denied their right to manage their finances or option to shift the loan to some other financial institution.
The UT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh held that the Bank failed to notify the consumers of any changes in the applicable rate of interest as per the orders of the Reserve Bank of India.
The Commission, comprised of President Justice (retd) Raj Shekhar Attri and Member, Rajesh Arya, held that, “looking to the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainants on account of the above deficiency in service, we are of the concerted view that the compensation and cost of litigation awarded by the District Commission, is on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably.”
The Bank has been now directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 15,000 as litigation cost, in each of the two cases.