Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the
fora below i.e. the order dated 17.10.2005 passed by the District -2- Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore in complaint No. 838 of 2004 and then by the Karnataka State Commission in Appeal No. 1060 of 2006 dated 19.07.2006, the petitioner/Bank, who was the opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. We have heard Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent-complainant as he remained unrepresented on record despite due service and was therefore proceeded ex-parte. The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. The consumer dispute raised by the complainant in his complaint was about the rate of interest which could have been charged by the petitioner/bank in regard to the loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- taken by the complainant and his wife. The District Forum on a consideration to the respective pleas and evidence and material produced on record, partly allowed the complaint, thereby directing the opposite party-Bank to recalculate the loan account of the complainant by charging rate of interest at 8.25% per annum on the balance of the loan account with effect from 1.10.2003 and to supply details of the calculations in -3- accordance with the above directions within thirty days. The State Commission affirmed the said findings and dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “It is not in dispute that the rate of interest has been reduced as stated above from time to time. If the rate of interest on the Housing Loan is reduced such benefit is to be extended to all the borrowers. In the instant case, the loan borrowed by the complainant was converted from fixed rate of interest to floating rate of interest. When the rate of interest has been reduced for borrowers, in our view the same is to be extended to other borrowers also even though the loan was borrowed prior to the reduction of the rate of interest. After going through the order of the DF, we find substantial justice has been done to the parties.” 3. Mr. Gupta would assail the said orders as erroneous and illegal on the ground that on the request made by the complainant the original rate of interest i.e. 13.26% was first reduced to 9.25% and thereafter from 9.25% to 8.25%. However, subsequent to that there was increase in the rate of interest from 8.25% to 10.25% and therefore the petitioner/Bank was within its right to charge the interest at the enhanced rate and the fora below were not justified in restricting the rate of interest at 8.25% with effect from 1.10.2003. We see force in this contention because once the complainant has availed the benefit of the reduction in the rate of interest from 13.26% to 9.25% and then to 8.25% for a certain period, -4- he must also pay the enhanced rate of interest when there was increase in the rate of interest. 4. In our view, the order passed by the fora below have resulted into miscarriage of justice and deserves to be set aside. Mr. Gupta states that the petitioner-Bank has charged the interest as per the prevalent rate of interest and entitlement of the bank and further that the respondent has already paid and squared up his loan account on 27th August, 2009. 5. In view of the above the petition is allowed and the complaint is dismissed. | 
