Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/171/2012

BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

K. RAMESH - Opp.Party(s)

S. SATHIYA NARAYANAN

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                       BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                         Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 171/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.49/2011 dated 18.11.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore ]

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

1.M/s Bank of India

DB Road, R.S. Puram

Coimbatore 641 002

Represented by its Branch Manager

 

2. M/s Bank of India

Rep.by Chairman

“Star House”C5, G.Block, Bandra Kurla complex,

Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051       

 

3. M/s Bank of India

Rep.by Zonal Manager

Zonal office, Oppanakara street, D.B Road, R.S.Puram

Coimbatore 641 001                                                                ..Appellants/opposite parties

                                                                               Vs

Mr.K.Ramesh

S/o Late C.R.Krishnan Kutty Mannadiar

11, Venkatasamy Road East,

Coimbatore 641 002                                                             ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the  Appellant/opposite parties   : M/s S.Sathiya Narayanan   

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant      : M/s B.L.Lavanya 

 

The appellants are the opposite parties.  The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellants/opposite parties filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC.No. 49/2011 dated 18.11.2011.

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 1.10.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore this commission made the following order.

                                      ORDER

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.             The opposite parties are the appellants.

2.            The complainant/Respondent availed a housing loan from the 3^rd opposite party for Rs. 25 lakhs and he was regularly paying the same and after payment of Rs. 20,57,562/- as on 4.8.2010, since he wanted to switch over the banking operation to IDBI bank for which after effecting Rs. 20 lakhs by the IDBI towards the loan, the opposite parties insisted the complainant to pay  a sum of Rs.57,562/- as balance amount to be payable for the purpose and for returning the original title deeds even after and the account was settled in full. When the complainant questioned the same, the 3^rd opposite party demanded Rs. 46,295/- towards pre-payment charges against agreed percentage for 0.55%  for Rs. 11,316.62 alone they demanded  more than that and thereby a consumer complaint filed to claim the reliefs.

3.             The opposite parties’ denied the allegation contending that as per Banking rules and regulations and terms and conditions of the agreement, they are entitled to collect pre-closure charges and there is no deficiency in their service.

 

4.          The District Forum on the basis of both side materials and after an enquiry,  allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to refund the excess amount of Rs. 34,897.40p with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 4.8.2010 till the date of repayment, to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and other sufferings caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as costs.

 

5.           Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties contended in this appeal since the complainant had closed the account prematurely as per the terms and conditions laid down by the Bank, they are entitled to collect the pre-payment and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

6.           We have heard both side arguments and carefully considered all the relevant materials in this regard. The only dispute  between the parties is that by pre-closure of account for switching over to some other bank, the opposite parties(Bank) collected a sum of Rs.46,295/- as against the agreed term of percentage at the rate of 0.55 % which was worked up only to Rs.11,316.60p alone they demanded  more than that and thereby it is disputed by filing the complaint.

 

7.          On the basis of the complaint, we relied upon Ex.A.1, sanctioned letter given by the Bank dated 22.7.2005 in favour of the complainant sanctioning the loan in question. In the above document contains Annexure-II, which contains the terms and conditions etc.,  applicable to the sanctioned facility. Condition 17 of the above document reads as follows:-

 

     “..Loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- is repayable in 180 monthly installments of Rs.24,630/- each commencing from January 2006 months after first date of disbursement, with an option to pre-pay with/without prepayment charges. Prepayments will attract additional charges @ 0.55% of loan amount if taken over to other Banks/F1 0.20% of loan amount if closed from own sources (As per terms of sanction)...”

          From these conditions it is clear if the loan amount is taken over to other banks. The pre-payment charges will attract at the rate of 0.55% if it is settled from own sources, it would be only for 0.20% and in this case, admittedly the complainant opted for IDBI bank loan switch over. Thereby as per the contention, he is liable to pay only at the rate of 0.55% of the loan amount for pre closure and the bank is entitled to charge accordingly, only at the rate of 0.55% which for Rs.11,316.60 and no material has been placed except for Ex.B.1 loan agreement how it was allowed to collect Rs.46,295/- and collected by the opposite parties.

 

8.       In these circumstances, we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum including the award of compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- which are all very reasonable and nominal and thereby there is no need for any interference with the order of the District Forum and  this appeal is to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

 

       In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC 49/2011 dated 18.11.2011.

           No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                            A.K.ANNAMALAI 

  MEMBER                                                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER