PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 4th day of November 2011
Filed on :04/08/2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 430/2010
Between
Joseph Babu, : Complainant
S/o. Paily Joseph, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court road,
Chirakuzhiyil house, Muvattupuzha)
Thirumarady P.O.,
Koothattukulam-686 662.
And
1. Assistant General Manager : Opposite parties
State Bank of Travancore, (By Adv. Sally Thomas Chacko
Ernakulam. Tharakan veedu, Elenjeril Lane,
K.P. Vallon road, Kadavanthra
P.O., Kochi-682 020.
2. State Bank of Travancore,
Kakkoor Branch, 686 662.,
Ernakulam, rep. by its Manager.
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The complainant unfolds the facts as below:
The complainant availed a loan to the tune of Rs. 12,10,000/- by mortgaging his immovable property for purchasing a bus to be plied to earn his livelihood. The crux of his complaint is that he was induced by 2nd opposite party to take loan on the basis of his assurance that the rate of interest will be only 10.5% per annum. But the actual rate of interest charged was 11.5 per annum. This has caused him much financial hardship. When he lodged a representation against such an act which is against the initial understanding, no reply has been tendered hitherto. Therefore complainant filed this complaint seeking various reliefs including reduction of rate of interest.
2. The transaction of loan availed from the opposite party bank is not disputed in the version filed by 2nd opposite party. The paragraph 5 of the version narrates the incidents that had really transpired between the parties. It is stated in para 9 that the rate of interest of 11.75% per annum has been specifically stated in the sanctioning letter. The representation submitted before 2nd opposite party remains to be decided because he is not the competent authority to dispose of the representation pertaining to rate of interest. In the light of above set of facts, it is urged by 2nd opposite party to dismiss the complaint.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 marked for him. 2nd opposite party filed version. Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Parties were heard.
4. The point for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled for reduction of rate of interest?
ii. What are the other reliefs, if any?
5. Points (i) &(ii). The complainant is aggrieved because he was charged interest at the higher rate than that was promised earlier by 1st opposite party. Complainant asserts that the latter had assured him that loan would be sanctioned at the rate of 10.5% interest per annum whereas when it was finally sanctioned they charged at the rate of 11.75%. According to him this act of back tracking would amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Complainant says that he came to notice the discrepancy only when pass book was issued to him on 5.5/2009 we do not think this contention is tenable because Ext. B1 sanction letter issued on 20-03-2009 will clearly show that the rate of interest for the loan is 11.75. The said letter contains the terms and conditions governing the transaction printed on the reverse page. The conditions printed thereof are important and binding on both sides. Clause 15 and 16 are of special significance. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that 1st opposite party had promised him the rate of 10.5 p.a. there is want of evidence to support his statement. Moreover, a mere glance of Ext. B1 would have made it clear that the interest was 11.75%. That being the facts, we do not find any reason to sustain the contention of complainant.
Consequently, for the reasons stated above the complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th day of November 2011
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
