KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.838/2004
JUDGMENT DATED 19.1.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
1. The Senior Manager,
North Malabar Gramin Bank,
Head Office, P.B.No.59,
Bank Road, Kannur-1.
2. The Manager, -- APPELLANTS
North Malabar Gramin Bank,
Trikadaripoil branch,
P.O.Tholambra, Kannur District.
(By M/s.M.P.R.Nair)
Vs.
E.K.Muhammed Ali Haji, -- RESPONDENT
S/o Kunhamu, Suharas
P.O.Uruvanchal, Kannur.
(By Adv.K.P.Sarvothaman)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties/North Malabar Gramin Bank in OP.52/01 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay re-calculate the interest from the disbursement of the loan amount only and to refund the excess amount realized with interest at 18 % and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs.4,72,500/- for purchasing a lorry chassis. The loan amount was received on 24.7.97. The opposite parties collected a sum of Rs.6,65,560/- on 31.8.2000 insisting that the interest is to be has been calculated from the date of sanction of the loan amount and not from the date of disbursal of the loan amount. It is stated that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- earlier towards the loan and hence he has altogether paid a sum of Rs.8,85,560/-. According to him, he is entitled to get a refund of Rs.2 lakh.
3. The opposite parties have contended that the loan was sanctioned on 29.3.97 and the amount of Rs.4,75,000/- the loan amount was put in suspense account and it was on the part of the lapse of the complainant that the loan happened to be disbursed on 23.7.97 only. According to the opposite parties, the complainant is liable for interest from 23.6.97.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts. A1 to A6 and B1 to B15.
5. The Forum has held that the claim of the opposite parties that the complainant is liable for interest from the date of sanction of the loan ie; 29.3.97 and not from the date of the disbursal ie; 24.7.97 is against the principles of nature of Justice and all norms of banking practice; and rightly so.
6. We find loan has been closed in 2000. The complainant was compelled to remit the amount that included interest from 29.3.97 up to 24.7.97. There is no justification for such a demand and realization.
7. The contention of the appellant that the agreement provided for the same stands not substantiated.
8. In the circumstances we find that no interference in the order of the Forum on the above point is called for. The direction of the Forum to refund the balance after effecting interest from 24.7.97 onwards only and to repay the same to the complainant with interest at 18% is also not liable to be interfered. The above part of the order of the Forum is sustained
9. All the same, we find that the direction to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- is not called for. The same is set aside. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay cost of Rs.1,500/-. It is clarified that the opposite parties would be liable interest at the excess amount calculated at the rate ordered by the Forum from the date of realization of the amount from the complainant. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to make the payment to the complainant within 3 months from 19.1.2011 of this order.
In the result, appeal is allowed in part as above.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU-- PRESIDENT
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
