ICICI withholds Loan Obligations - Consumer Forum Rules against ICICI...

For some time now, consumer forums have been ruling on unfair practices carried out by banks, with ICICI Bank being one of the banks having been penalized in the past for various actions that have gone against consumer practices. In this case, a forum ruled against the bank after it was disclosed that the bank had not provided the consumer (who had taken a loan from the bank), all the details regarding the conditions and terms of the loan. The consumer had taken a personal loan from the bank, and after realizing the interest for the loan (after reviewing the EMI payments), realized that the loan was very expensive. However, closing out the loan was not as simple as one would have thought:

Pal had instituted a complaint under Consumer Protection Act saying that he availed a personal loan of Rs 40,636 from the bank in September 2006. The loan installments were Rs 2,199 each for 36 months but he was allegedly not informed about the rate of interest as well as other terms and conditions of the loan. The complaint added that the bank assured Pal that he would receive the terms and conditions at his postal address. It was averred that he received a cheque of Rs 37,719 but neither the terms of the loan were conveyed to him nor the rate of interest disclosed.

However, Pal was surprised to note from the EMI schedule that the rate of interest being charged from him was very high, which was against the guidelines issued by RBI. Unhappy with the rate of interest, he approached bank for foreclosure of loan, whereupon he was advised to complete the EMIs for at least six months in order to avail the benefit of one time settlement. It was alleged that even after receiving the full and final settlement amount, the bank illegally withdrew an amount of Rs 2,199 in year 2008 from his account as per statement.

This is something that has been in the past, many times; with the consumers either promised something else verbally and the same condition not being implemented in writing; in addition, bank officials in many cases give the impression that they are not too concerned about consumer service and make life more difficult for the bank customers

 Source

Power of Attorney holder entitled to file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

Ahmedabad, Jan 5 (IANS) In a landmark judgement, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an insurance firm to pay a man Rs.10,000 as damages for a malfunctioning television set, though the petition was rejected earlier because the man's parents had filed the complaint on his behalf, armed with a power of attorney.

The India Assurance Co. Ltd will also have to pay the Durga Dalal an interest of 10 percent per year on the amount, starting Jan 1, 2003, the New Delhi-based commission ruled.

Local consumer forums here had rejected the complaint earlier because someone armed with a power of attorney (POA) had filed it.

There is a legal debate in Indian courts on whether POA holders can file a case on the behalf of a victim.

The panel, which was deciding on a "revision petition" filed by Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS) here, held that a POA holder was entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Earlier, the district forum here had dismissed the complaint as "non-maintainable" on this ground. The Gujarat State Commission had also held that that the case did not stand. But the commission set their orders aside.

The parents of Durga Dalal alleged that the television had broken down suddenly and the insurance company was bound to reimburse consumers on the basis of a household policy. Durga had bought the TV set.

On July 30, 2002, his parents filed a claim for Rs.30,000. When the insurance company did not pay, they approached the district forum.

The insurance company held it had offered to pay Rs.10,000, though its surveyor had reported that the TV set was very old and valued at Rs.8,500-9,500. It also said the damage was caused by wear and tear that was not covered under the scope of the insurance policy.

The National Commission said the state commission and the district forum had taken "an over-technical view" in dismissing the complaint by "holding that father/mother of an aggrieved person or his power of attorney was not entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986".

"This is erroneous," the National Commission observed. "It is to be reiterated that under the Act, technicalities are not to be encouraged because the only procedure prescribed under the Act, is to follow principles of natural justice and to decide the matter after hearing both parties."