National Commission Dismisses Petition Against ICICI Bank Over Excess Charges Due to Limitation Period
In a recent ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by AVM J. Rajendra, dismissed a petition filed against ICICI Bank, citing that the complaint was barred by the limitation period. The Commission held that a completed wrong becomes a continuing wrong only when the breach of duty persists.
The case involved two housing loans taken by the complainants from ICICI Bank. The bank had increased the Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) and interest rates on both loans, which had a significant financial impact on the complainants. In the first loan, the bank overcharged Rs. 5,91,885, while the second loan saw an overcharge of Rs. 1,11,469. The total overcharged amount amounted to Rs. 7,03,354.
The complainants, feeling aggrieved by these excess charges, approached the District Consumer Forum. They sought a refund of the overcharged amount, along with compensation for harassment and the costs incurred during the litigation. The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainants, ordering the bank to refund the overcharged amount of Rs. 7,03,354, pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service, and cover Rs. 10,000 in litigation costs.
However, ICICI Bank appealed the decision at the State Commission in Chandigarh, which overturned the District Forum’s order. In response, the complainants filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
The bank argued that the complaint was not valid, as it was essentially a request for account rendition and recovery. It further claimed that the complaint was time-barred, as it was filed more than two years after the loans were granted in 2006 and 2007. The bank also argued that the floating interest rates were in accordance with the loan agreements and guidelines. The complaint, filed in 2016, was beyond the two-year limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The National Commission examined the case and referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of M/s. Samruddhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2022), which clarified the concept of continuing wrongs. According to the Supreme Court, a continuing wrong arises from a breach of an obligation that requires continuous action or omission. However, a completed wrong with ongoing effects does not qualify as a continuing wrong unless the breach persists.
In this case, the National Commission found that the complainants’ claims regarding the arbitrary interest rate increases did not constitute a continuing wrong. The last interest rate increase had occurred in 2013, and the complaint was filed in 2016, well beyond the limitation period. Therefore, the Commission upheld the decision of the State Commission to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of limitation and dismissed the revision petition.
