D.o.F:22/1/13
D.o.O:29/11/2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.30/13
Dated this, the 29th day of November 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
1.Sumangala.S.Nambiar,
W/o I.P.Sreedharan Nambiar : Complainants
2. I.P.Sreedharan Nambiar,
S/o Krishna Kurup, Mangalya, Pilicode Po
1.Manager, North Malabar Gramin Bank,
Cheruvathur Branch,Kadavath Tower,
Po Cheruvathur.
2.General Manager, North Malabar Gramin Bank,: Opposite parties
Head Office, PB.NO.1424,NMGB Tower
Po.Pallikkunnu,Kannur-4
(Adv.Adv.Sathyashankarara.M)
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complaint are as follows;
That the Ist complainant availed an agricultural loan for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the opposite party bank for which 2nd complainant stood as guarantor. It was a long terms loan for 3 years under Krishi Credit card scheme. The loan was obtained on 19/2/2008 and the due date was on 19/2/2011. The complainants paid the annual interest for the Ist 2 years promptly and they were prepared to pay the principal amount of Rs. 3 lakhs with last year’s interest on the due date. But on 6/10/2010 the complainants received a notice from the bank , as per the notice the complainants were directed to pay principal amount of Rs. 3 lakhs + Rs. 65015 interest within 7 days. According to complainant the demand was against the terms and conditions of the memorandum of agreement entered into between the bank and the complainants and the 2nd complainant had filed a complaint before the bank and the 2nd opposite party had sent reply stating that they had given instruction to the branch manager and on that basis the branch manager reduced the interest from Rs.65015 to Rs.45250/- and the complainants had cleared the above said loan on 13/12/2010 by paying Rs.345250/- . After clearing the loan the complainants came to know that the bank had charged exorbitant rate of interest which is against the memorandum of agreement entered into between the Ist complainant and the bank. Hence this complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties filed version admitting the loan availed by the complainants from the bank and stated that the loan availed under Krishi Credit Card is for 3 years and the loan has to be renewed every year by paying full amount to the account but here the complainants failed to renew the above loan on due dates and hence the said account was not eligible for 7% interest and in such cases the interest chargeable is 12% interest instead of 7% as government will not provide interest subsidy to unrenewed accounts .It is further submitted that as per the representation made by the complainants the bank had recalculated the interest charged and waived the penal interest and the rate of interest charged by the bank is as per law and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Here the Ist complainant examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of opposite parties Manager is examined as DWs 1 and Exts.B1 to B4 marked. Both parties heard and gone through the argument notes .
4. After consider the facts on records and the oral evidence adduced by both parties the following issues arose for consideration
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties
2. if so what is the relief?
The specific case of the complainants is that the opposite parties charged exorbitant rate of interest instead of charging subsidised rate which is against the memorandum of agreement ie, Ext.A2 executed between the Ist complainant and the opposite party. At the time of availing the agricultural loan. According to the complainants they were not aware whether they have to renew the loan every year under the Krishi Card scheme. It was not informed to them by the bank. The complainants were paid the interest promptly every year and they came to know about the yearly renewal only at the time when the bank demanded 12% interest Here the opposite party vehemently contended that the complainants are professors and they are well educated and they were aware that every year the loan will be renewed. The opposite party further contended that the terms and conditions are stipulated in the memorandum of agreement executed between the Ist complainant and the opposite party and the complainants are bound to follow the same. The question to be answered is whether the opposite party fails to disclose or explain the terms and conditions of the Krishi Credit Card Loan Scheme. Here the complainants paid the annual interest promptly without any delay. The complainants paid Ist & 2nd years interest . While cross examining PW1 the opposite party asked a question to the 2nd complainant that after availing the loan whether Ist complainant gone to the bank? The 2nd complainant categorically stated that the Ist complainant has not gone to the bank but the 2nd complainant gone to the bank and paid the interest. That means the complainants were not aware they have to go every year and to renew the loan account for the purpose of remitting the interest the presence of the Ist complainant is not necessary and that may be the reason why she had not gone to the bank. It is pertinent to note that during the time of remitting the Ist years interest the bank has not asked about the renewal of the loan account . 2nd year also the same thing followed. Moreover during the 2nd year the bank charged only subsidised rate of interest . If the non renewal of loan account is affected automatically the benefit of the scheme will go and the bank could have collect the interest without deducing the subsidy. Ist 2 years the bank will have collected subsidized interest as per Krishi Cedit Card scheme that means the mistake is committed by the bank. Moreover every year 2nd complainant had gone to the bank and paid the interest if they were aware that the loan account has to be renewed every year what is prevented them from renewing the loan account. On considering the above facts we are of the opinion that the bank fails to disclose the terms and conditions of the memorandum of agreement to the complainant . It is the duty of the bank to explain the terms and conditions of the scheme. The customers may be educated or uneducated but they may not be aware about the terms and conditions of a particular loan scheme. It is the duty of the bank to give instructions to its customers as and when needed. On signing of the agreement or undertaking letters will not constitute a complete contract . The terms and conditions must be explain to the parties . It is not correct to say that after signing of a particular agreement the parties to the agreement are aware of the facts written in microscopic letters . Usually all borrowers will be putting their signature as directed by the bank officials while by availing the loan.
In Rohith Bajaj & Ors Vs ICICI Bank Ltd & Ors. II 2008 CPJ 271 NC ) the Hon’ble National Commission observed that standardised contracts are pretended contracts- signatures obtained on doted lines not really represent substantial agreement with terms in it- consumer Fora empowered of curing mischief adopted by one of the contracting parties- terms of contract in specified form if unjustified / unilateral, it cannot be termed as intentional contract- complainants signatures taken on printed form , without explaining terms and conditions ‘’.
Here the Apex court categorically stated that the terms and conditions must be explain to the customer. The Hon’ble Commission also observed that it is unfair trade practice and that is to be stopped by the banks. In this case also it is very clear that the opposite party fails to explain the terms and conditions at the time of executing the agreement as well as subsequent to that agreement .
Therefore it is a clear case of unfair trade practice . In our society usually and especially in bank cases the officials are not kind enough to give subsidies to the eligible agriculturists but always thinking how to refuse or minimise the subsidy to the poor people which is a benefit given by the government .
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex court we are of the view that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and there by the complainants during their old age dragged to the court for their redressal and suffered mentally and economically., Therefore the complainants are entitled to get back the amount paid in excess as interest and also eligible for compensation.
Hence the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.27931/- to the complainants and the opposite parties are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25000/- and cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the complainants are entitled an interest @ 9% for Rs.27931/- from the date of complaint till realisation. The opposite parties are further directed to stop these type of unfair trade practices to the customers.
Exts.A1 -copy of report of OP
A2- copy of agreement
A3- demand notice
A4- letter issued by OP
B1-undertaking letter
B2- copy of circular
B3-copy of circular
B4- copy of state of accounts
PW1-I.P.Sreedharan Nambiar-2nd complainant
DW1-Balakrishnan-Manager of OP.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
