BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.346 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 21.12.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:08.04.2019.

Teka S/o Harphul aged about 78 years, R/o House No.934, Mana Patti, Village Mator, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal (Adhar Card No.8623-5438-6487).

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

Axis Bank, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager, Kaithal, Branch of Axis Bank, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

….Respondent.

Before:      Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

                Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

Present:     Sh. V.K.Manon, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant applied for loan to the Op and a loan of Rs.16 lacs was sanctioned in favour of complainant.  It is alleged that at the time of sanctioned/amount of loan, the loan agreement was entered between the parties to repay the loan amount with interest @ 11.95% per annum.  After clearance of loan amount, the complainant took the statement of account from the bank and on the calculation, it was found that the Op has charged excess interest.  The complainant requested the Op to refund the excess amount of interest on the loan amount charged by the Op but the Op did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant had approached the Op for availing loan facility from the Op in the year 2012 and the Op sanctioned credit facility of Rs.16,00,000/- to him vide sanction letter dt. 25.07.2012 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter which were duly accepted by the complainant.  As per the aforesaid sanction letter, rate of interest was 12% p.a. with half yearly rest.  Further the Op was also entitled for penal interest and other charges in the event of default in repayment committed by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, it is stated that the Op has never charged any more interest as alleged.  The complainant was liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. with half yearly rest on the amount withdrawn by him.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CA, Ex.CB and Mark-CA and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.           On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1, Mark-RA & Mark-RB and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is not disputed that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.16 lacs from the Op.  The main dispute between the parties is that according to complainant, the interest rate was at the rate of 11.95% p.a. but the Op charged excess interest from the complainant.  On the other hand, the Op contended that the interest rate was 12% p.a. with half yearly rest and the Op was also entitled for penal interest and other charges in the event of default in repayment committed by the complainant.  We have perused the sanction letter, Ex.R1, wherein in the column of rate of interest mentioned at Sr.No.6, it is mentioned “Production Credit: Base rate + 2% i.e. at 12% p.a. payable Half yearly (Present Base Rate=10.00% p.a.)” and in the column of other condition mentioned at Sr.No.14, it is mentioned as under:-

        “1. Any excess drawing or irregularity on account of non-payment of interest/charges/installments will attract penal interest of 2% p.a.

        2. PDC’s as per guidelines.”

                So, from the above-said sanction letter Ex.R1, it is clear that the rate of interest was 12% p.a. with half yearly rest and the Op was also entitled for penal interest of 2% p.a. in the event of default in repayment committed by the complainant.  The complainant has failed to produce any calculation which could prove that the Op charged the excess amount from the complainant.  The complainant has also failed to prove any cogent evidence regarding the excessive rate of interest charged by the Op from the complainant.  Mere allegations are not sufficient, those are necessary to be proved by cogent evidence.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.: 08.04.2019.    

                                                                        (D.N.Arora)

                                                                        President.

(Suman Rana),           (Rajbir Singh)         

Member                             Member.