D.O.F. 16.06.2010 D.O.O. 06.04.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. C.C.No.163/2010 1. P.V. Ramakrishnan, ‘Anaswara’, Chembilode, P.O. Mouvanchery, Kannur PIN : 670613 : Complainants 2. Snehalatha N. W/o. Ramakrishnan P.V. ‘Anaswara’, Chembilode, PIN : 670613 1. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chakkarakkallu, P.O. Mouvanchery, Kannur. (Rep. by Adv. V.P. Pradeep) : Opposite Parties 2. Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Kannur. O R D E R Sri. K. Gopalan, President. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 20,000 as compensation and the cost of this proceedings. The brief case of the complaint is as follows : Complainant No.1 availed agricultural gold loan for an amount of ` 3,00,000 from opposite party No.1, Bank on 27.03.2009. The bank has sanctioned this loan for one year with interest @ 7%. On 30.08.2009 when he went first time for remitting the amount, the total amount due and interest shown in the computer was ` 3,07,134 remitted on the day and later on two occasions ` 1,800 each had been remitted on 07.10.2009 and 06.11.2009. Nothing has stated with respect to the increase in the rate of interest on those occasions. When the complainant went on 09.12.2009 he was informed that the loan has become due on 30.06.2009 and from 01.07.2009 onwards 7% interest has to be paid. This fact was not properly informed the complainants in time. Bank took more than ` 5,000 from him on the basis of over rate of interest that is published in notice board and orally convinced by the authorities. If the cut off date informed earlier in time no problem would have been occurred. In the case of 2nd complainant the loan availed was ` 2,27,000 on 15.12.2008. On 03.08.2009 the amount due shown on computer was ` 2,37,056. Interest amount ` 10,056 remitted on the day and ` 1,500 each were remitted on subsequent dates on 17.10.2009 and 06.11.2009. In this case also bank took more than ` 6,000 upon high rate of interest difference from the terms of agreement. Opposite party has obtained signature of complainants in several blank forms saying that they themselves will fill up the form conveniently. Both cases opposite party charged high rate of interest over and above what is agreed as per the terms of agreement. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version jointly. Opposite parties contended as follows. The complainants availed agricultural loan namely (1) 1st complainant – Account No. JL247/2009 of ` 3,00,000 on 27.03.2009. (2) 2nd complainant – Account No JL 731/2008 of ` 2,27,000 on 15.12.2008. The rate of interest fixed was as per norms prescribed by the Government of India in the subvention scheme for agricultural gold loan. The loan availed during the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.09.2008 kharif, the due date was 31.03.2009 and in this period the rate of interest is 7% . If it is not paid within the due date then the interest @ of PLR-1+OD 2% will be charged from 10.04.2009. Likewise the loan availed during the period from 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2009 (Rabi) the due date was 30.06.2009. If it is not paid within the due date, then with the interest @ PLR – 1 + OD 2% will be charged from 01.07.2009. Hence in this case PLR is 12% and effective chargeable rate is 12-1 = 11+ OD 2% is + 13%. 7% interest is applicable only upto the due date. The bank reminded the complainants on 03.08.2009 itself that in both their loans the due date is 30.06.2009 and from 01.07.2009 the rate of interest would be charged @ 13% per annum. But thereafter the complainant did not raise any complaint about it. Surprisingly on 11.12.2009 the complainant came up with written complaint alleging that the bank has charged high rate of interest. The opposite party issued reply dated 16.01.2010 stating that interest charged by the bank is as per the norms. In the meanwhile they closed the loan accounts on 01.01.2010 paying the loan amount with interest as prescribed in this scheme. The complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman thereafter with same complaint. After considering the contentions the Banking Ombudsman issued its order on 12.04.2010. Banking Ombudsman also offered a hearing to the complainant but complainant did not prefer the hearing. The complainant is with ulterior motives to make undue financial game. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1, A1 to A5 and B1 to B7. Issues No.1 to 3 It is an admitted fact that complainants had availed Agricultural Gold Loans from the above Bank, opposite party No.1 during the year 2008-09. The complainants case is that the Bank has charged excess interest. Opposite party on the other hand contended that they have only charged the rate as per the Government norms. The main allegation of the complainant is that the rate of interest was 7% as per loan agreement but the opposite party took excess interest @ 13%. Thus the real dispute arise out of the rate of interest. Complainant adduced evidence by affidavit evidence that they have taken short term loan for a period of one year. The rate of interest was 7%. Accordingly he has remitted interest ` 7,134 on 03.08.2009 as per the total amount shown in the computer ` 3,07,134, both interest and loan amount which will be evident in the interest slip. He has also remitted interest ` 1800 each on 07.10.2009 and on 06.11.2009. But when he went on 09.12.2009 he was informed by 1st opposite party that the loan period was matured on 30.06. 2009 and from 01.07.2009 onwards the interest rate would be 13%. Same was the case 2nd complainant also. Complainant also stated that the period of loan was one year and rate of interest was 7% and it was on that basis the agreement was signed. Opposite party never stated complainant, even at the time of payment of interest, loan period was matured on 30.06.2009 and thereafter the interest was 13%. In the cross examination he was deposed that he has taken loan money on time before availing the present loan. He has also deposed that the Manager told him that the period of loan is one year with interest @ 7%. The signature seen in Ext.B1 is of complainant. Complainant also deposed that the signature in the annexure is that of his but the entries entered later. Answer to the another question he deposed that his understanding of period was one year and interest rate only 7%. Ext. B1 and B2 are loan agreements. Loan agreement shows that the rate of interest is 7%. DW1 in cross examination has admitted that as per the order on 23.07.2007 complainant was sanctioned loan for 3 lakhs @ 7% interest for a period of one year. Opposite party Bank contended that Bank had reminded the complainant on 03.08.2009 itself that in both loans the due date would be 30.06.2009 and from 01.07.2009 the rate of interest has been charged @ 13%. Complainant has specifically alleged that such information has not been sent to complainant neither by writing nor by orally. Opposite party though contended so no evidence has been placed before the Forum so as to prove the same true. It can be seen that complainant has remitted 7% on three occasions. Namely on 03.08.2009, 07.10.2009 and on 06.09.2009. Opposite party has no case that on the occasion of remitting this amount opposite party has informed the complainant regarding the rate of interest and due date. The amount remitted is seen 7%. DW1 deposed in cross examination that “15.12.2008 apX 03.08.2009 Ime-b-f-hn 7% ]eni 10.056 cq]-bmWv F¶p ]d-ªm icn-bm-Wv.” It is quite clear and understandable that the complainants reminded interest amount @ 7% on those date mentioned above. But opposite party did not conveyed any information to complinant regarding interest. Opposite party contended that Ext.B3 and B4 are part of Ext.B1 and B2 photocopy which shows the rate of interest is @ 13% from 01.07.2009 onwards. Complainant though admitted signature alleged that the entries therein has been made afterwards. Both Ext.B3 and B4 are marked with objection and opposite party has not taken interest to prove the same by producing the original. In the light of the allegation that the Ext.B3 and B4 are concocted documents opposite party should have been taken interest to produce the original. It is a document kept in the hands of opposite party and there is nothing prevented them from producing the same. It is a very relevant document as far as this case is concerned, wherein, complainant pleaded that “30.01.2009 \v tem¬ Imem-h[n Xocp-¶Xv tcJm-aq-etam hm¡mtem Adn-bn-¨n-cp-s¶-¦n Cu _m[-yX Ccp-hÀ¡pT Hgn-hm-¡m-am-bn-cp-¶p.” The case of the complainant that this loss would have been avoided if it was informed in time, cannot be ignored simply. What is the reason why opposite party has not produced the original to prove that the matter was informed earlier. Non production of these documents, resulted in failure, on the part of opposite party in proving the fact that the question on increasing of the rate of interest and due date had been informed on the dates mentioned above. When the complainant alleges that the entire loss that he has suffered is due to non-receiving of this information. Opposite party is not expected to keep the document under lock that leads to suspect the genuineness of the contentions of opposite party. Opposite party contended that bank has reminded the complaint the rate of interest and due date on 03.08.2009. But that is not proved. The main contention of opposite party is that the rate of interest fixed by the Government is as per the Interest Subvention Scheme. Ext.B5 is the Interest Subvention Scheme. Ext.B5 however pointed out the aspect that the short term crop production loans they including short term jewel loans granted to crop production purpose. Upto ` 3,00,000 should be granted at the interest rate of 7% per annum during Khariff, 2008 and Rabi 2008-09. It is also mentioned that branches are required to circulate subvention at 3% for the remaining 2 quarters. It is pertinent to note that nowhere in the document Ext.B5 it is mentioned to charge 13% interest. Subvention Scheme is a scheme intended for the benefit of the farmers and the scheme cannot be misinterpreted to charge almost double the interest deviating from the announced rate of 7% interest. How does enhancements in subvention rate to 3% from 2% enables to extract 13% interest from farmers, is not convincingly explained by opposite parties. Ext.B5 document, subvention Scheme does not recommend the charge 13% interest from farmers. Bank has not produced any clarification orders or directions. It is also important to note that the broad guidelines of the Scheme are communicated by two circulars namely (1) Circular No. 129-2007-BC dated 13.06.2007. (2) Circular No. 169-2008-BC dated 23.07.2008 which are not the opposite party felt good to produce before the Forum for a clear better understanding the terms of loan. An institution like opposite party must show its dignity in presenting the matter in a better understanding way in most convincing manner providing sufficient materials relevant to deal with the subject matter in issue and not expected to approach tactically so as to escape from the liability obfuscating the public at large. Ext.B5 is a Scheme intended for the benefit of the farmers. According to New Websters Dictionery Subvention means financial grant, especially by Government or institutions; to aid or support some endeavour; subsidy; the granting of financial aim etc. But the farmers those who were taken loan under this Scheme @ 7% have practically put on rail to be charged 13% interest ie almost double the promised rate by the misinterpretation of the scheme. Opposite party is not serious neither to convince the farmers nor the Forum, where they approached for relief, how did they work out the rate of interest. The relevant documents mentioned earlier are seen suppressed. The suppression cannot be considered as without reason. We are under the impression that there is deficiency in service that amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and we feel opposite parties are liable. In the light of the above discussion we feel complainants are entitled for compensation and we pass an order to pay ` 3000 to the 1st complainant and ` 2,500 to 2nd complainant together with ` 1,000 as cost of this proceedings to the complainant. Hence the issues No.1 to 3 are in favour of complainant. In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties (1) To pay ` 3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the 1st complainant. (2) To pay ` 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) to the 2nd complainant. (3) To pay cost ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) to 1st complainant. Opposite parties shall pay this amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainants are entitled to receive interest @ 12% from the date of filing of this complaint till the realization. Complainants are at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Interest Slip of Bank to 1st Complainant. A2. Interest Slip of Bank to 2nd Complainant. A3. Reply letter dated 16.01.2010 to 1st Complainant. A4. Reply letter dated 16.01.2010 to 2nd Complainant. A5. Advertisement. Exhibits for the opposite party B1. Request for Loan dated 27.03.2009. B2. Application cum letter of pledge for loan dated 15.12.2008. B3. Annexure regarding rate of interest dated 27.03.2009. B4. Annexure regarding rate of interest dated 15.12.2008. B5. Copy of the Bank Circular dated 26.12.2008 B6. Copy of letter issued by Banking Ombudsman dated 12.04.2010 to 1st Complainant. B7. Copy of letter issued by Banking Ombudsman dated 12.04.2010 to 2nd Complainant. Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant No.1 Witness examined for the opposite party DW1. Jayakrishnan E.T. PRESIDENT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur | 
