CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.223/10
Tuesday the 16th day of August, 2011
Petitioner : M.K. Dharmapalan,
Priyamanasa House,
East Gate, Vaikom PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Rayin K.Ravi)
Vs.
Opposite party : Branch Manager,
The Kottayam District
Co-Operative Bank Ltd.,
Vaikom.
(Adv.Jose Joseph K)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 6/8/10, is as follows:-
Petitioner availed a housing loan from opposite party for Rs. 3,75,000/-as per housing loan account No.45/08. Petitioner after making discussion with SBI for takeover of the loan approached the opposite party. On 19/2/10 opposite party issued a certificate to the petitioner stating that the balance amount to be remitted is Rs.3,70,000/-. As per requisite for loan take over with the opposite party a cheque No.5440 dated 19/2/10 for Rs.3,70,000/- of SBI was given to the opposite party. Opposite party accepted the cheque. After accepting the entire loan amount opposite party withhold the documents submitted by the petitioner, at the time of availing the loan. After repeated demands on 19/3/10 petitioner issued a lawyers notice to the opposite party. According to the petitioner due to the heavy pressure and harassment, on 6/5/10 petitioner remitted Rs.11,382/- for release of the title deeds and connected documents. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, so he prays for refund of the amount with 18% interest. Petitioner also claims Rs.15,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance, filed version, contenting that petition is not maintainable and is barred under Section 69 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Loan transaction is admitted by the opposite party. According to the opposite party at the request of the petitioner on 19/2/10 opposite party issued a certificate showing the balance as on 19/2/10. Neither the petitioner nor the officials of SBI expressed the intention to take over the loan. Petitioner on 19/2/10 produced a cheque for Rs. 3,70,000/- drawn on the SBI, Vaikom. Opposite party informed the petitioner that opposite parties is entitled for take over charge at the rate 3% interests up to the date of payment. Opposite party expressed their willingness to give the documents after complying the norms. On payment of the take over charge of Rs.11250/- and its interest documents were released. The other commercial banks and co-operative banks are also charging take over charges. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. They prayed for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext.A1 to A10 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1 to B7 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
The crux of the case of petitioner is that act of the opposite party in levying an amount of Rs.11,382/-, as take over charges, at the time of closure of the loan with the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. According to the opposite party, opposite party is entitled to collect surcharge. Opposite party produced a copy of the page No.41 of instruction given by the District Co-Operative Bank to its branch said document is marked as Ext.B7. In Ext.B7, as the instruction No.23, it is stated that during take over of the loan availed from District Co-operative Bank 3% surcharge is to be levied. In Ext.B1 reply opposite party stated that as per the decision of Director Board Meeting dated 14/7/07 it is decided that 3% surcharge is to be levied in the case of take over loan. Nothing is placed by opposite party with regard to any direction from the co-operative department or else any authority that opposite party has legal right to levy take over charge. There is no agreement between the petitioner and the opposite party with regard to the levying of taking over charges. In our view act of the opposite party in levying surcharge of 3% for taking over loan definitely amounts to deficiency in service. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point No.1 petition is allowed.
In the result opposite party is ordered to refund the petitioner Rs.11383/- with 12% interest from 6/5/10 till realisation. Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is ordered. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as litigation costs.
Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of August, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Certificate issued by the Vaikom main branch of KDCB dtd 19/2/10
Ext.A2-Letter dtd 8/3/10 of Branch Manager SBI.
Ext.A3-Letter dtd 22/10/10 from the petitioner to the General Manager DCB
Ext.A4-Copy of lawyer’s notice dtd 19/3/10
Ext.A4(a)postal receipt
Ext.A5-Postal AD card
Ext.A6-Letter dtd 6/5/10 issued by the Branch Manager SBI
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1-copy of letter dtd 6/3/10 of the Manager KDCB Vaikom.
Ext.B2-letter dtd 10/3/10 issued by Manager KDCB to the Manager SBI Vaikom
Ext.B3-Copy of reply lawyer’s notice dtd 29/3/10
Ext.B4-Copy of letter dtd 19//2/10 of SBI Vaikom
Ext.B5-copy of letter dtd 8/3/10 of SBI Vaikom
Ext.B6-Copy of reply as per RI Act dtd 31/3/11
Ext.B7-Copy of page No.41 of the instruction given by the KDCB HO
