KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

                                      APPEAL NO.161/10

                             JUDGMENT DATED 28.7.2011

PRESENT:

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                    :  MEMBER

S. Chithra

Proprietrix, M/s Devi Stores,                    :  APPELLANT

Market Road, Attingal.

(By Adv. Sri. J. Jayakumar)

Vs.

The Manager

Indian Bank,

Attingal Branch, Attingal                            :  RESPONDENT

(By Adv. Sri. S. Sreekumaran Nair)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant is the complainant and respondent is the opposite party in OP.No.28/07 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank in collecting excess amount of Rs.3,63,523/-.  Hence the complaint was filed for refund of the excess amount with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

2.      Though notice was served on the opposite party they did not file any version in the matter and they remand ex-parte.

3.      Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 documents were marked.  On an appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 30.4.09 dismissing the complaint in OP.28/07.  Hence the present appeal.

          4.      We heard both sides.

5.      The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He also relied on the documentary evidence of Ext.P4 pass book and argued for the position that the opposite party/Bank collected excess amount by way of penal interest.  Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the forum below and to allow the complaint in OP.28/07.  On the other hand, the respondent/opposite party supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and they prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

6.      Admittedly, the appellant/complainant availed loan from the respondent/opposite party bank by way of secured overdraft facility.   There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant defaulted in making payment to the loan   account.  It is also come out in evidence that the complainant was a chronic defaulter.  It is to be noted that the appellant/complainant entered into a loan agreement with the respondent/opposite party bank for the purpose of availing the loan by way of overdraft facility.  The amount availed by way of overdraft was Rs.7,25,000/-.  There is no case for the appellant/complainant that she was not bound to pay penal interest for the overdue charges.  So, the penal interest calculated and collected by the respondent/opposite party bank can be treated as one in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement entered into between the parties.  It is also to be noted that the appellant/complainant was a chronic defaulter and so the collection of penal charges for the defaulted payments can be treated as just and proper.  There cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank in collecting penal charges on the overdue amounts.

7.      It is come out in evidence that the loan account was converted to a non performing account and the said action was adopted by the opposite party bank in accordance with the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India.  It is further to be noted that the respondent/opposite party bank has also proceeded against the appellant/complainant loanee under the provisions of the securitization and re-construction of financial assistance and enforcement of   Security Interest Act, 2002.   Admittedly, a notice under Section 13 (2) of the said Act was also issued to the complainant.  The allegation of the complainant that the opposite party was reluctant to settle the account by way of one time settlement and there occurred deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank cannot be accepted as such.    There is nothing on record to show that the respondent/opposite party bank acted against the provisions of the terms and conditions of the agreement or any of the provisions of law.  On the other hand, the materials available on record would show that the bank has only collected the amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party bank.  So, the Forum below can be justified in dismissing the complaint as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank.

8.      It is further to be noted that the complainant/loanee paid the entire balance amount due to the bank and the loan account was closed on 8.6.06.  If the complainant had any grievance against the opposite party bank, she would not have paid the entire amount due to the bank and closed the loan account.  The aforesaid action on the part of the appellant/complainant loanee would give an indication that she paid the amount to the bank   which was legitimately due to the bank under the loan agreement.  Thus, the present appeal deserves dismissal as there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed.  As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 

M.V. VISWANATHAN   :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                        M.K. ABDULLA SONA:  MEMBER