KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL 207/09 JUDGMENT DATED : 31.7.09 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Thrissur in CC.1058/06 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.Secretary, : APPELLANTS Cochin Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., No.329, Civil Line Road, Thrissur – 4. 2. Branch Manger, Cochin Co-operative Agricultural and Rural, Development Bank Ltd., Wadakkanchery. (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) Vs. K.P.Narayanan, : RESPONDENT S/o Papppan, Kathalikkattil House, Manalithara, Thalappilly Taluk. JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 22.1.09 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in CC.1058/06 whereby directing the opposite parties to return a sum of Rs.6601/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint along Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed an agricultural loan for Rs.10527/- from the opposite party Bank and he closed the loan on 15.12.04 by remitting Rs.28981/-,the said amount includes 11381.13/- as interest, Rs.6601/- as penal interest and Rs.472/- as notice charge. According to the complainant the opposite parties collected excess amount from him and as per the directions of the Government, the Registrar of Co-operative Society had given direction to the banks to return the penal interest to the borrowers if collected from them. The complainant approached several timed for getting the excess amount collected but the opposite parties rejected his request. Hence he filed the complaint before the Forum for getting excess amount collected from him. 3.The opposite parties in their version admitted the collection of Rs.6601/- from the complainant and according to them they are entitled to do so. They further contended hat the loan was closed as per one time settlement scheme and the complainant had given discount of Rs.1460/- and there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4.The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P6 from the side of he complainant Ext.R1 from the side of the opposite parties. 5. We head the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent who appeared in person . The learned counsel for the appellants argued for the position that the complainant is not eligible for the benefits of the circular dated 10.4.06, as he had closed the loan on 15.12.04, prior to the issuance of the circular and that the circular has prospective operation only. He further submitted that as per the provisions of the then existing rules the bank was authorized to levy interest and penal interest in case the loanee commits default in payment and the bank acted only as per the agreement and provisions of the circular in force at that time. More over the complainant was given the discount of Rs.1460/- which is a benefit under the one time settlement scheme. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand the respondent who appeared in person submitted that on 15.12.04 he had remitted Rs.28,981/- to close the loan transaction and this amount includes penal interest Rs.6601/- and notice charge of Rs.472/- and as per Ext.P3 circular the bank is restrained from charging penal interest and if any collected should be returned to the customers and he supported the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Forum below and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. On going through the record and on hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent who appeared in person we find that it is the admitted case of both the complainant and the opposite parties that an amount of Rs.28981/- was remitted by the complainant on 15.12.04 as per one time settlement scheme. It is also not disputed that the amount of rR.6601/- was collected as penal interest by the appellants/opposite parties. The case of the appellants is that they are entitled to collect the said amount as per the circular in existence at the time of settlement and that there was no deficiency in service on their part in doing so. It is also their case that the circular dated 10.4.06 came into force only in 2006 and the complainant/ respondent had closed the loan in Dec.2002. So the complainant is not entitled to the benefits covered under the said circular. But on a peruaal of Ext.P3 circular we notice that the circular dated 19.5.03 has been withdrawn and the loanees are entitled to refund or adjustment of penal interest collected from them. In such a situation we find that though there was no illegality of irregularity in collecting the penal interest in 2004, the opposite parties/appellants are liable to return the amount to the complainant/respondent which was collected towards penal interest . In the instant case the amount of Rs.6601/- was collected towards penal interest. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the circular had no retrospective effect and hence the opposite parties are not liable to refund the said amount. But on careful reading it is evident that as per the circular the Agricultural and Rural Development Banks are directed to return the amounts collected even earlier to the circular which came into force. It is our considered view that the opposite parties are liable to return the amount of Rs.6601/- collected from the complainant/respondent towards penal interest. 7. The Forum below has also ordered 12% interest on the amount of Rs.6601/- from the date of filing of the complaint. However we find that the opposite parties had collected the amount as per the circular in existence at the time of collecting the amount. As such no deficiency can be attributed on the side of the opposite parties/appellants. The only direction that can be given is to return the amount of Rs.6601/- collected towards penal interest based on the circular dated 10.4.06. However the complainant had to approach the Forum for getting the relief and hence the amount of Rs.1000/- which was ordered as cost is not interfered with. In the result the appeal is allowed in part and order of the Forum is modified to the effect that the opposite parties/appellants would pay a sum of Rs.6601/- to the complainant. Cost of Rs.1000/- which was ordered by the Forum below is sustained. The opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay the above said amount to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which the amount of Rs..6601/- will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to cost. SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
