SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

Complainant filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking to get an order directing opposite party bank to pay Rs.50,000/- towards excess interest received from the complainant in the KCC loan taken by him together with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

Case of the complainant is that he had availed an agriculture loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- from OP bank on 04/10/2019.  Due to covid 19 pandemic, the bank was closed and he could not repay the loan within the due time.  Further on 06/06/2022 renewed the loan then instead of taking 4% interest OP bank had charged Rs.8,400/-.  Hence this complaint.

After receiving notices OP filed version stating that the complainant have availed a KCC loan from OP bank on 04/10/2019 for Rs.1,70,000/-.  The said loan had to be reviewed on 04/10/2020 but party has not reviewed the loan on that date.  Citing the covid pandemic situation ministry of finance had extended moratorium for KCC accounts and accounts which have become due during the lockdown situation could have been renewed by 31/08/2020.  But the said loan was due only after the relaxation time band given by the government.  By that time covid situation had ceased and normal functioning was somehow restored.  Party hasn’t contacted the branch nor serviced his interest due onetime so that to be eligible for interest subsidy as per GOI norms.  He later renewed his loan on 11/06/2021 and further again on 06/06/2022 bank has charged 8400/- rupees for his loan includes the periodic charges debited by the bank for loans as per norms along with the 4% interest  charged on the loan.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the par t of OP and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

            At the evidence stage, both parties led evidence.  Complainant has filed his chief affidavit and documents.  He has been examined as Pw1 and documents have been marked as Ext.A1 to A4.  On behalf of OP, Branch Manager of OP bank has filed his    chief-affidavit and has been examined as Dw1 marked Ext.B1 to B3 on the side of OP bank.  Both witnesses were subjected to cross-examination by the rival party.  After that complainant has argued the matter and the learned counsel of OP has filed written argument note.

            Complainant’s case is that OP has imposed excess interest in his agricultural loan and that is why he could not get the benefit of 4% interest as per the norms in KCC loan.

            On the other hand OP bank contended that for getting interest subsidy benefit for the loan taken under KCC loan scheme should have been closed within 1 year from the date of taking of the loan.  According to OP, in the instant case though covid pandemic situation exists as alleged by the complainant, the ministry of finance had extended moratorium for KCC accounts till 31/08/2020.  But the complainants loan became due only after the relaxation time band given by the Govt. ie on  04/10/2020.  So complainant cannot claim the benefit of covid pandemic relaxation.  Complainant had renewed his loan only on 11/006/2021 ie after a period of 20 months.  As per the terms and condition of the loan agreement Ext.B1 the bank had charged 7% per annum for initial 1 year and 13% per annum for the overdue period of 8months and applicable charges are also collected.  According to OP, the bank had explained all terms and condition of the loan and the renewal day at the time of sanction itself.  Ext.B2 shows that sanction communication was given to the complainant.  During cross-examination complainant has agreed all these facts.  Hence we are of the view that OP bank had not collected any excess amount from the complainant against the terms and conditions of loan agreement.

            The other allegation of complainant that bank had charge Rs.8,400/- instead of Rs.6,800/- as interest for second renewal.  OP has stated that they had collected normal interest on balance above the principal and applicable service charges as per the terms and conditions of agreement.  According to OP, they had not levied any excess amount from the complainant.  Her complainant also failed to prove his allegation.  Since complainant has signed loan agreement (Ext.B1) and sanction communication to borrowers (Ext.B2), he ought to have remitted the interest and charges as per the loan agreement.  Hence on considering the whole evidence, we are of the view that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party bank.

            In the result complainant failed to prove his case and hence the same is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Exts

A1-Loan account statement copy

A2-Receipt dated 11/06/2021 

A3-Loan account statement dated 12/08/2022

A4-Receipt dated 06/06/2022

B1-Memorandum of agreement

B2-Sanction communication

B3-Statement of accounts    

PW1-Complainant

      Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar