BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 359/2013
Indian Bank, Mandya Branch, Opp. to Bramha Kumari Samaj, Bannur Road, Mandya, Represented by its Senior Manager Sri K. Sadanandam, S/o Sri K. Venkatesham, Aged about 51 years. (By Sri K.S. Sreekantha) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Sri K. Gangappa, S/o Kenchaiah, Aged about 58 years, Residing at No.100, Vivekananda Block, Teachers Layout, Mysore. (By Sri D.S. Ashok) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.18.02.2013 passed in CC.No.190/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he availed a housing loan from the Opposite Party in the year 2006 by securing his house property situated at Mysore as additional security and in order to inspect the house, the bank officials has charged Rs.17,650/- as incidental/inspection charges against which the complaint filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.17,650/- along with compensation and costs.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments.
4. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the incidental/inspection charges are levied as per the norms of the bank and they have furnished a copy of the index to show what are the charges to be levied if the inspection was done by the officials of the bank inspite of that the District Commission allowed the complaint, hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission.
5. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order of the District Commission and the documents produced by both parties, we noticed here that the respondent has availed a housing loan from the Opposite Party and provided a housing property situated at Mysore as a collateral security towards the loan. The officials of the Opposite Party Bank have inspected the house for the purpose of sanctioning the loan. The charges imposed by the officials of the bank are not exorbitant and is in accordance with the norms and guidelines issued by the bank. The District Commission made an error in not considering the norms and guidelines and service charges index provided by the Indian Bank and directed the appellant to pay the abovesaid amount. We found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in charging incidental/inspection charges prior to sanctioning of the loan. As such the Order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside as there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The respondent/complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
