By: Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
1. In the year 2014, the complainant availed a housing loan from the bank of opposite party and repayment was made without committing any default. But in every six months the opposite party collected inspection charges from the complainant. There was no annual renewal of loan by the complainant. According to the complainant there was no provision for collection of inspection charge as per the terms of the loan. The complainant understood that no other financial institutions were used to collect inspection charges for housing loan. So the complainant approached this Commission to get an order to refund entire inspection charges collected from him with interest and also sought for compensation of Rs 25,000/- on the grounds of mental agony and hardship suffered due to the illegal act of the opposite party and includes cost of proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared through counsel and filed version.
3. It is contended in the version that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It was admitted by the opposite party that the complainant was availed a housing loan from the bank of opposite party. But the opposite party denied the allegation in the complaint that the opposite party collected inspection charges from the complainant. The opposite party contended that the bank did not collect any money illegally from the complainant. The complaint was filed on the basis of misconceived facts and allegations are false and incorrect. The opposite party stated that bank collected service charges from the complainant under the strength of circular No 163/2019 w.e.f 25/09/2019 not under the head of inspection charge. The opposite party collected amount from the complainant by way of legally permissible manner. The complaint was filed intending to vex and harass the opposite party. There was no basis for the allegation that others are not used to collect inspection charges for housing loans. The complaint filed before State Human Rights Commission by the complainant was false and incorrect as the opposite party collected money from the complainant as per legally permissive manner. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost of the opposite party.
4. The complainant and the opposite party filed affidavits in lieu of their respective evidences. The complainant filed one document and marked as Ext A1 document. Ext A1 document is the copy of passbook of the loan account held with the bank of the opposite party. The opposite party filed documents and marked as Ext B1 to B3. Ext B1 document is the copy of circular No 163/2019 dated 16/03/2019 issued by the general manager of Kerala Gramin Bank. Ext B2 document is the copy of housing loan agreement executed by the complainant with the opposite party. Ext B3 document is the copy of loan sanction communication to the complainant from the bank of opposite party.
5. Heard both sides. The opposite party also filed notes of argument. Perused affidavits and documents. The points arised for the consideration of the Commission are:-
[1] Is the opposite party committed any act of deficiency in service towards the complainant?
[2] Relief and cost.
6. The complainant was appeared before the Commission to get redressed his grievances caused due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by the opposite party. The complainant stated that he availed a housing loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the bank of opposite party on 20/11/2014. According to the complainant, he was regularly repaying the loan instalments without committing any default, but the opposite party collecting some amount illegally in every six months under the head of inspection charges from the complainant. On the contrary the opposite party contended that bank collected money as service charges as per the existing norms. According to the opposite party bank, bank informed the nature of collection of money but due to misunderstanding of facts the complainant agitated the issue before the Commission. The complainant produced Ext A1 document to show that opposite party collected money illegally under the manoeuvre of inspection charges. The opposite party admitted that the bank had collected money as service charges and adduced evidence to show that service charges collected was in accordance with the norms of the bank. The opposite party produced Ext B1 to B3 documents to substantiate the contention raised in the version. Ext B1 document is the circular No 163/2019 dated 16/09/2019 issued by the general manager of Kerala Gramin Bank authorising the opposite party to collect inspection charges from its customers including the complainant. The opposite party also stated that bank acted in accordance with the rules and regulations which have framed in time to time. When going through Ext B1 document it can be seen that date of issuance of the Ext B1 circular was on 16/09/2019. But Ext A1 document shows that the payment of alleged inspection charges started from 27/12/2014 onwards. The opposite party did not produce any document similar to that of Ext B1 document was existed right from the beginning of loan transaction. Moreover the opposite party also failed to produce any kind of documentary evidence showing that information had been conveyed to the complainant regarding as much inspection charges would be levied on him.
7. It was argued by the complainant that no employee of the opposite party was visited the site of the complainant except at the time of first inspection. So in this context opposite party failed to adduce evidence with respect to the alleged site inspections. It was admitted by the opposite party that inspections were done without informing the complainant. Even though the property was mortgaged with the opposite party as seen in Ext B2 document, the opposite party cannot act arbitrarily and unilaterally when a valid agreement was existed and especially the complainant stood as a non defaulter. Moreover the opposite party admitted the fact of collection of Rs.5,000/- as advocate fee from the complainant. The complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party. During the pendency of this complaint, complainant approached the opposite party and paid the balance amount of loan installment. There was no allegation against the complainant that he was a defaulter at any point of time. Even without any finding against the complainant by any of the adjudicating authority including this Commission the opposite party collected Rs 5,000/- from the complainant as advocate fee. This kind of act from the opposite party is unjustifiable and arbitrary especially the opposite party is a financial institution conducting business for making profit. So on the basis of facts analysed above this Commission finds that opposite party acted arbitrarily, committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practices against the complainant. So this Commission allows the complaint as follows :-
- The opposite party is directed to refund entire amount collected under the head of inspection charges to the complainant except the first inspection charge of Rs 281/- remitted on 27/12/2014.
- The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs 50,000/- to the complainant as the opposite party committed deficiency in services and adopted unfair trade practices against the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs 10,000/- to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
Dated this 16th day of November , 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1
Ext.A1: Copy of passbook of the loan account held with the bank of opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: Copy of circular No 163/2019 dated 16-03-2019 issued by the general manager of Kerala Gramin Bank.
Ext.B2: Copy of housing loan agreement executed by the complainant with the
opposite party.
Ext.B3: Copy of loan sanction communication to the complainant from the bank of
opposite party.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
