KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.285/09 JUDGMENT DATED.16.10.09 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT M/S Indian Overseas bank, Cherootty Road, Calicut, -- APPELLANT Rep. by its Senior Manager. (By Adv.B.Madhukumar) Vs. Dr.P.C.Shaji.M.D, Managing Director, M/s Parco Diagnostic and Research Centre (P) Ltd -- RESPONDENT Indraprastham, P.B.No.2301 Arts College P.O, Meenchantha, Calicut – 673018. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.34/06 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellant is under orders to refund Rs.1,63520/- with 9% interest from 17.1.06 and also to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. The dispute is with respect to the enhanced pre-closure charges claimed by the opposite party/bank. As per Ext.A2 terms and conditions with respect to the loan involved dated 22.3.04 the interest was 14% and pre closure charges at 1%. Subsequently, as per Ext.A1 the revised terms and conditions dated 20.12.04 the interest was revised at 12% and the pre-closure charges remained the same ie;1%. The loan was taken over by the SBI in August 2005. The appellant is relying on Ext.B2 letter dated 28.1.05 wherein the Deputy General Manager has written to the complaint that the reduction of the interest from 14% to 12% is subject to a lock in period of one year for the interest rate and pre paid charge of 2% in case of pre- closure of the loan amount. It is the case of the complainant that has not received Ext.B2 letter dated 28.1.05. No postal acknowledgement etc. was produced by the opposite party. As pointed out by the counsel for the respondent Ext.A5 letter dated 8.8.05 issued by the complainant protesting the levying at 2% pre-closure charges there is no mention about Ext.B2. Even otherwise the terms and conditions of the loan agreement cannot be unilaterally changed by the letter written by the Deputy General Manager. Even in Ext.A1 terms and conditions of the loan, as per it the interest rate was revised from 14% from 12%. The pre-closure charges remained the same ie; 1% in Ext.A2 as well as the in Ext.A1. In the above circumstances, the Forum has directed the opposite party to refund the excess 1% of the pre-closure charges levied. I find that there is no illegality in the above order of the Forum. There is no merit in the appeal filed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT | 
