Completed Wrong With Ongoing Effects Does Not Constitute Continuing Wrong: NCDRC Dismisses Petition Against ICICI

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainants availed two housing loans from the bank. Subsequently, the bank increased EMI and interest rates on both the loans, which drastically affected the complainants. On the first loan, the bank overcharged an amount of Rs. 5,91,885. For the second loan, they were overcharged an amount of Rs. 1,11,469, which amounts to a total of Rs. 7,03,354. Aggrieved, the complainants moved to District Forum, filing a complaint that included demands for excess charges to be refunded, harassment compensation, and costs incurred in the litigation process. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the bank to refund the amount of Rs. Rs.7,03,354 charged in excess, pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation for deficiency and Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs. Consequently, the bank filed an appeal before the State Commission of Chandigarh, which set aside the District Forum's order, prompting the complainants to file a revision petition before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Bank

The bank argued that the complaint was not maintainable as it was essentially for account rendition and recovery. It claimed the complaint was time-barred and exceeded the Forum's pecuniary jurisdiction. It was further argued that the floating interest rate was as per the agreement and guidelines. It was reasoned that the loans were granted in 2006 and 2007, and the complaint, filed in 2016, exceeded the two-year limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The bank sought the dismissal of the complaint based on the above grounds.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the Supreme Court in M/s. Samruddhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 36, clarified the concept of continuing wrongs. A continuing wrong arises from a breach of an obligation requiring continuous action or omission. The court emphasized that a completed wrong with ongoing effects does not constitute a continuing wrong unless the breach of duty persists. In this case, the complainants' claims about arbitrary interest rate changes were not considered a continuing wrong. The last interest rate increase occurred in 2013, and the complaint was filed in 2016, exceeding the limitation period. Thus, the State Commission's dismissal of the complaint on limitation grounds was upheld and the revision petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Naresh Kumar Sharma & Anr Vs. ICICI Bank Limited & Anr.

Case Number: R.P. No. 1216/2022

Click Here To Read/Download The Order