KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.11/2022
ORDER DATED: 29.01.2024
(Against the Order in I.A.No.298/2021 in C.C.No.263/2021 of DCDRC, Kannur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:
| Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited represented by its Manager & Authorised Officer, Divya Somanath, 3rd Floor, Ambadi Tower, Edappally Toll – 682 024 |
(by Adv. Narayan R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
| Chandrasekharan M., S/o Kunhambu, Mattangoden House P.O., Ullikkal, Iritty, Kannur – 670 705 |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
This revision is directed against an order dated 10.02.2022 in I.A.No.298/2021 in C.C.No.263/2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (the District Commission for short). The Revision Petitioner is the opposite party before the District Commission. The respondent is the complainant.
2. Complaint of the respondent is that, the Revision Petitioner was guilty of unfair trade practice. The Revision Petitioner is a financial company. The respondent had availed a housing loan from the opposite party for Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) on 28.02.2017. The loan was to be repaid in monthly instalments over a period of ten years. The EMI was worked out to be Rs.5,130/-(Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred and Thirty only) for ten years. However, the respondent/complainant had actually paid only Rs.2,36,319/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Nineteen only), after deducting an amount of Rs.16,181/-(Rupees Sixteen Thousand One Hundred and Eighty One only) as processing fees. The complainant has also alleged that though he had already paid an amount of Rs.2,33,010/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand and Ten only), the amounts paid have been adjusted towards interest and only a meagre amount has been credited to the principal. The interest rate charged is exorbitant and is in violation of the provisions of the Money Lenders Act.
3. The Revision Petitioner filed a written version denying the case of the complainant. according to them, the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission for various reasons. They contended that the complaint was barred by limitation. According to them, the dispute related to settlement of accounts, and is maintainable only before a Civil Court. There was also an arbitration clause in the agreement, which remedy the complainant had not resorted to. The District Commission considered the contentions and has found that the complaint was maintainable and I.A.No.298/2021 has been dismissed.
4. We have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner. We have also carefully perused the order of the District Commission. As rightly found by the District Commission, the transaction between the parties in this case was a loan transaction. The complaint is that, exorbitant interest was charged by the Revision Petitioner from the complainant. The dispute as to whether unreasonable interest has been charged by the Revision Petitioner is without doubt, a dispute between the financier and the consumer, which is a consumer dispute. The existence of an arbitration clause is not a bar against filing a consumer complaint. Therefore, the District Commission has rightly found that the complaint was maintainable before it. We do not find any infirmity in the order under revision, warranting an interference with the same.
This revision is therefore, dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
