BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT
MYSURU.
Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1131/2016
Complaint filed on 23.02.2016
Date of Judgement.08.11.2017
PRESENT : 1. Shri Ramachandra M.S., B.A., LL.B.,
PRESIDENT
2. Shri Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Complainant/s : 1. N.Nagamma
W/o Late S. Narayana
Aged 68 years.
R/at # 1089, Sunnadakeri,
9th cross, Mysore.
(Sri. M.D. Chandrashekar Advocate)
V/s
Opponent /s : 1.Branch Manager
Canara Bank,
Nanjumalige Branch,
Mysuru.
2. The Managing Director
Canara Bank, J.C. Road,
Opposite Town Hall,
Bangaluru.
(Sri. H.C. Prakash., Advocate)
3. The Deputy General
Manager H.R.M. Complaint
Wing section, Canara Bank,
Circle office, Nazarabad,
Mysore.
(Exparte)
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service |
Date of filing of complainant | : | 01.10.2016 |
Date of Issue notice | : | 24.11.2016 |
Date of Order | : | 08.11.2017 |
Duration of proceeding | : | 1 year 1 month 7 days |
SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,
PRESIDENT
JUDGEMENT
The complainant filed the complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking for relief to pay the excess interest of Rs. 45,690/- and prayed for other relief.
2. The brief facts of the complainant that the aged customer and also a senior citizen holding an account jointly in the bank having more than 10,00,000/- since a very long time with the opposite no.1. It is submitted that, the complainant obtained an agriculture development loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- in two accounts bearing no 1614793005060 and each bearing the deposit account no.164133000075/1 amount Rs. 2,30,000/- bearing the deposit account no 161433000076/1 on 26.08.2010 respectively with a standing instruction of Rs. 2,000/- to credit every month to the said loan account from complainant SB account no 1614101015529 to each loan accounts. Whereas this standing instructions has not been properly followed. On the complainant forcing for implementation of standing instruction opposite party 1 then only followed instructions resulting in high interest which is burden to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 has put forth an untenable reason stating that opposite party no.1 charged interest on the said loan accounts at 12.5% as per the documents from 06.04.2011 to which I have issued a registered notice through my advocate dated 19.12.2015. The said legal notice is neither replied nor the document furnished to me resulting in mental agony and deficiency of service.
3. It is submitted that, as per the terms and conditions the interest on the loan account has not been charged properly. It is submitted that, the interest charged by the opposite party no.1 as per their whims and fancy but not followed as per the norms. Further the opposite party no.1 has imposed lumsum interest of Rs. 47, 731 23,464 on load account no. 1614793005060 and lumsum of interest a sum of Rs. 49,105/25,327 bearing loan account no 1614793005061 was charged to my loan account the penalty interest also charged for both the loan accounts without specifying from which period to which period the interest is charged to my loan account no advice of debit furnished as require to be done.
4. It is submitted that, both the loan account were closed on 17.04.2015 at which time it has come to complainant knowledge that the bank has charged excessive interest to complainant loan accounts. It is submitted that, on verification of the loan accounts the complainant has came to know that the opposite no.1 has charged excess interest and penal interest also. The complainant submitted a representation to set right/solve the same vide letter dated 22.04.2015. The complainant submitted a representation claiming the refund of excess amount, penal interest etc vide letter no.29.05.2015, 18.06.2015, 27.06.2015 and 15.07.2015, inspite of it, the opposite parties deliberately neither replied nor complied the said representation causing mental agony and deficiency of service to the complainant.
5. It is submitted that, the complainant has submitted the above remainders to the bank since they charged excess interest to the complainant’s loan accounts. It is submitted that, the opposite party no.1 did not deliberately redressed the grievance of the complainant, left with no option and 3 vide letters dated 03.08.2015 and 04.09.2015 along with enclosed letter and copies of the documents with a request to redress the grievance of the complainant no redressal of grievance effected cornering the complainant of a lady customer who is an old aged and a senior citizen having substantial deposit in the bank.
6. It is submitted that, the complainant made number of visits to opposite party no.1 for redress or grievance but nothing has been considered. Left with no option the complainant got issued legal notice through an advocate on 17.11.2015 called upon to refund the excess interest of Rs. 45,690/- charged to her loan accounts. After service of the said notice the opposite party no.1 has replied through their advocate on 28.11.2015 with an untenable reasons claiming they have charged 12.5% interest instead of 9.5% per annum as per the documents, but dispite my legal notice date 19.12.2015 requesting for such document on which the bank has claimed to have charged 12.5% interest no such documents furnished to the complainant, legal notice also cornered.
7. Notice to opposite parties duly served represented by counsel and filed version.
8. The complainant and opposite party has filed chief examination affidavit and documents in support of their contention written arguments filed, oral arguments heard, reserved for orders.
9. Heard arguments.
10. The points that arise for our consideration are;
- Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thereby he is entitle for the relief sought?
- What order?
11. Our answer to the above points is as follows;
- Point No.1: In the affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
12 . Point No.1:- That it is an undisputed fact that the complaint has availed two agricultural loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- and 1,50,000/- from the opposite party back for which bank has taken of Rs. 2,30,000/- each FD amount and complaint alleges at the time of sanction of loan it was agreed that rate of interest will be 9.5% gradually it was enhanced to 12.5% complainant claims the act of opposite party bank amounts to deficiency in service and sought the relief of refund of excess interest and prayed for other relief.
13. Further the opposite party has filed written version by denying all the allegations of complaint and contends that the interest charged is in accordance with loan agreement and also as per the guide lines of banking regulations act and while charging the enhanced rate interest they are bound by the Reserve Bank guidelines and finally they deny any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
14. Further it is pertinent to note that from the perusal of all the documents and averments it is apparent from these records that the opposite party has charged the interest on the said loan amount is in accordance with the loan agreement conditions. Here it is very important to note that the complaint at the time of availing the loan from opposite party bank. She has entered in to a loan agreement with bank. The condition in para 3 and 4 of the above said agreement is as follows:-
15. Subject to the charges in rates of interest from time to time as may be advised by the bank and notified in the notice board of the Bank.
16. When the complainant has agreed and signed the loan agreement both parties are bound by the conditions of the agreement. The opposite party bank by virture of agreement is empowered and permitted to enhance the rate of interest from time to time as and when required. Here from these facts it is observed that the bank has acted in accordance with the loan agreement this conduct of opposite party bank cannot be termed as illegal .
17. From these facts the allegation of complainant, that opposite party bank has charged excess rate of interest on the loan amount it cannot be accepted at stretch of imagination. The complainant he who seeks equity must do equity with this observation the claim of complainant for refund of excess interest amount of Rs.45,690/- is dismissed as against opposite parties.
18. Further it is apparent from the records produced that even though that opposite party bank is entitle to collect enhanced rate of interest. The opposite party bank shall intimate the same to loan borrower whenever there is enhancement in rate of interest it has to be as per the guide lines of banking Regulation Act and RBI guide lines. When the opposite party bank has charged the enhanced interest without any due intimation to the complainant this conduct act of opposite party bank is nothing but violation of the banking regulation act this conduct amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank for which they are liable to pay the lawful claims of complainant. At the same time complainant is entitle to receive the same.
19. In view of the above observation the point no 1 we answered in the affirmative.
20. Point no.2:- From the above discussion we hereby proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby allowed in part
- The opposite parties are directed pay of sum Rs. 5,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.3000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of proceedings to the complainant within 30 days of this order.
- In default to comply the above order opposite party shall pay interest on the said amount of 11,000/- at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of order till payment made.
- In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party shall
undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of
the CP Act, 1986.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed , typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the 8th November 2017)
Shri Thammanna Y.S., Shri Ramachandra M.S.,
Member. President.
