ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present revision petition filed against interim order dated 16.11.2016 passed by learned District Forum Shimla in M.A. No. 34 of 2015 filed in Consumer Complaint No. 172/2015 title Ranvir Singh Baidwan v. ICICI Bank Limited & Ors . Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant namely Ranvir Singh Baidwan filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that opposite parties sanctioned home loan of Rs. 200000/- (Two lac) to complainant on dated 25.02.2002. It is pleaded that loan was to be repaid in 192 equal monthly instalments @ Rs. 2293/- (Two thousand two hundred ninety three) along-with interest @11.5% per annum. It is further pleaded that agreement was also executed inter se parties. It is pleaded that complainant being a government servant has repaid loan amount strictly and punctually as per conditions of loan agreement. It is pleaded that in the year 2015 when complainant visited opposite parties for obtaining NOC qua land mortgaged against home loan then complainant came to know that a sum of Rs. 205754/- (Two lac five thousand seven hundred fifty four) is still payable to opposite parties by complainant as on 21.01.2015. It is pleaded that opposite parties not only increased tenure of repayment from 192 months to 371 months unilaterally but also increased amount of EMIs from time to time unilaterally. It is pleaded that opposite parties has charged interest at their own volition without adhering to RBI guidelines. It is pleaded that complainant requested opposite parties to correct error but opposite parties refused the request of complainant. Complainant sought following reliefs: (i) Relief to direct opposite parties to refund additional amount of loan charged from complainant along-with interest @ 24% from the date of payment (ii) Complainant also sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) on account of mental agony and physical harassment. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to try complaint as question of settlement of account is involved in complaint. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint not filed by complainant within time. It is pleaded that loan was obtained by complainant in the year 2003 on floating rate of interest and present complaint was filed in the year 2015 after twelve years of sanctioning of loan amount. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint not filed by complainant within time. It is pleaded that loan was obtained by complainant in the year 2003 on floating rate of interest and present complaint was filed in the year 2015 after twelve years of sanctioning of loan amount. It is pleaded that complainant has himself adopted floating rate of interest qua loan amount. It is further pleaded that cheques issued by complainant were bounced in the months of January 2004, February 2004, March 2004, May 2004, June 2004, July 2004, August 2004, February 2005, July 2010 and January 2013. It is pleaded that due to dishonouring of cheques issued by complainant various charges had been levied in the loan account of complainant. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. During the pendency of complaint complainant filed application for interim order under section 13(3B) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is pleaded that opposite parties be restrained from deducting any amount from the salary account of complainant towards equal monthly instalments for repayment of home loan. Opposite parties contested application pleaded therein that no prima-facie case and balance of convenience exist in favour of complainant. It is pleaded that opposite parties would suffer irreparable loss if opposite parties restrained from recovering its dues/EMIs of home loan advanced to the complainant. 5. Learned District Forum vide interim order dated 16.11.2016 restrained opposite parties from claiming further amount from complainant subject to furnishing of undertaking by complainant that if opposite parties would be entitled for further amount he would pay the same. Learned District Forum further ordered that undertaking would be furnished by complainant within thirty days. Learned District Forum disposed of interim application filed under section 13(3B) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in view of aforesaid terms. Feeling aggrieved against interim order present revision petition is filed before State Commission by opposite parties i.e. ICICI Bank Limited & Ors. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arises for determination in present revision petition. 1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionists is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 8. It is prima-facie proved on record vide annexure C-1 that complainant obtained house loan to the tune of Rs. 200000/- (Two lac). 1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionists is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 8. It is prima-facie proved on record vide annexure C-1 that complainant obtained house loan to the tune of Rs. 200000/- (Two lac). It is also prima-facie proved on record that loan was to be repaid within 192 equal monthly instalments. It is also prima-facie proved on record that amount of each EMI was Rs. 2283/- (Two thousand two hundred eight three). It is also prima-facie proved on record that interest was to be paid as per floating rate of interest. 9. State Commission also carefully perused loan agreement executed inter se parties. As per loan agreement in the event the borrower opts for fixed rate of interest offered by ICICI Bank then rate of interest would be applicable to the loan amount as per fixed rate of interest mentioned in schedule A. In the event the borrower opts for adjustable interest rate offered by ICICI Bank then rate of interest would be applicable to the loan amount as per adjustable interest rate mentioned in schedule-B. As per loan agreement ICICI bank would be at its sole discretion and as per guidelines and policies would provide loan at concessional rate of interest as provided in the applicable schedule. 10. It is prima-facie proved on record that complainant opted for floating rate of interest mentioned in schedule B. Controversial issue whether complainant paid all amount along-with interest due cannot be decided at this stage of case unless opportunity is not granted to parties to lead evidence in support of controversial issue. The controversial issue whether complainant paid entire amount or not will be decided by learned District Forum when complaint will be adjudicated finally after obtaining evidence from parties as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is also prima-facie proved on record that cheques issued by complainant were dishonoured ten times. It is well settled law that person who seeks equity must do equity himself. It is well settled law that person cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time in view of the fact that cheques issued by complainant relating to payment of house loan were dishonoured ten times. It is well settled law that person who seeks equity must do equity himself. It is well settled law that person cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time in view of the fact that cheques issued by complainant relating to payment of house loan were dishonoured ten times. State Commission is of the opinion that prima-case and balance of convenience are in favour of opposite parties relating to payment of house loan amount. It is all well settled law that complaint relating to settlement of account and recovery of balance amount did not fall under section 2(1)(c) and (e) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. See 1998 (2) CPC 538 NC Vishal Roadways v. Economic Traders . In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in affirmative. Point No. 2: Final Order 11. In view of findings upon point No. 1 revision petition is allowed. Interim order of learned District Forum Shimla dated 16.11.2016 passed in M.A. No. 34 of 2015 filed in Consumer Complaint No. 172/2015 titled Ranvir Singh Baidwan v. ICICI Bank Limited & Ors.. is set aside. Observation will not effect merits of the case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of revision petition. Parties are left with to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along-with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum Shimla on 28.04.2017. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of cost strictly as per rules. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.