KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL 443/09 JUDGMENT DATED: 29.12.09 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP.3/05 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The Manager, :APPELLANT Muthoot Bankers, Kottappadi.P.O., Malappuram. (By Adv.C.M.Stephen) vs. E.Unnipocku, : RESPONDENT S/o Moideen Haji, Zeenath, Arimpra.P.O., Via.Mongam, Malappuram. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.3/05 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3,116/- with interest at 9% from the date of complaint and also Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that on 31.1.04 he availed a gold loan of Rs.67,000/- by pledging 67gms of gold ornaments. The agreed rate of interest was 18%. On 23.8.04 when he wanted to redeem the pledge Rs.11,956/- was collected as interest apart from the loan amount. When he protested he was told that the excess of Rs.150/- he can collect. The complainant complained to Regional Manager but there was no reply. He has sought for the return Rs.8000/- alleged excess etc. 3.It is admitted in the version filed by the opposite party that the agreed rate of interest was 18%. It is contended that the period of loan was fixed as 6 months and the complainant was liable to pay monthly interest but the complainant filed to do so. The pledge ought to have been redeemed by 31.7.2004. As the interest was not paid every month the complainant is liable to indemnify the opposite party for the loss he sustained and the risk taken. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.A1 to A4, B1 and B2. 5. The Forum has noted that the opposite party has collected interest at 30.59%. If interest is calculated at 18% and applied for 7 months of the pledge the interest amount would be only Rs.8,840/- and balance was ordered to be repaid. It is also pointed out that the contentions of the opposite parties are vague. 6.The counsel for the appellant has pointed out that in Ext.B1 loan agreement itself it is specified that interest should be paid on the dates mentioned in the passbook and if so penal interest can be avoided. According to the counsel the above clause meant that the failure of depositing interest on the dates mentioned therein would result in liability to pay compound interest. The word used in Ext.B1 is penal interest. The rate of penal interest is not mentioned in Ext.B1. In Ext.A1 notice by the opposite party also the colums are blank with respect to the rate of interest. Ext.A2 receipt issued at the time of redemption to the pledge also mentions the interest in lump. It is not possible to find as to how the amount of interest was calculated. I find that the appellant ought to have specified the terms properly and cannot collect the amounts as interest at rates which are not specified in the loan agreement. The contention that penal interest meant compound interest cannot be approved. In the circumstance I find that there is no reason to interfere the order of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed. Office is directed to return the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
