THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
APPEAL No.1602/2013
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial
Service Limited, 2nd floor,
Mahesh Prasad Building, ...Appellant/s
Near Mayura Talkies main Road,
Bolwar, Puttur-574 201
(By Sri.Jayakumar.N.D, Advocate)
-Versus-
Mrs.Shanthi.V.G,
Wife of Mr.V.A.Ganapathy,
Paggula village and Post, …Respondent/s
Virajpet Taluk,
Kodagu District
(By Sri.N.Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The Appeal No.1602/2013 has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order passed by Kodagu District Consumer Commission, Madikeri in complaint No.07/2012 dated 26-7-2013 and prays to set-aside the order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
On 21-8-2008 the complainant and the Opposite Party have jointly executed a loan agreement and the Opposite Party partly financed of Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant for purchase of Maruthi Omni. In order to sell the vehicle purchased by the complainant, he wanted to be close the loan prematurely, for which the Opposite Party has collected Rs.9,900/- towards installment, Rs.1,500/- towards cheque return charges, Rs.12,230/- towards penal interest and Rs.47,370/- towards settlement entries and totally the Opposite Party has collected Rs.61,000/- from the complainant, which is excessive. Hence, this complaint.
3. After service of notice of the District Commission, the Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and denied the allegations made by the complainant and contended that only after the complainant fully satisfied of the accounts, closed the loan account by paying her actual dues. The complainant has not paid the amount under any protest; hence there is no any deficiency of service on his part and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. After trial, the District consumer Commission partly allowed the complaint along with litigation expenses.
5. Being aggrieved by the above said order, the appellant/Opposite Party preferred this appeal before this Commission.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. Perused the appeal memo and the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that, it is not in dispute that the respondent had availed a loan of Rs.1,70,000/- from the appellant, in order to purchase a vehicle on 21.8.2008. It is also not in dispute that, she approached the appellant for pre-closure loan and appellant had collected Rs.9,900/- towards installment, Rs.1,500/- towards cheque return charges, Rs.12,230/- towards penal interest and Rs.47,370/- towards settlement entries.
8. The appellant contended that, it has not collected the excess amount from the respondent, there are some various dues from the respondent’s side and after satisfied herself, the respondent has made payment to close the loan.
9. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that, the respondent has admitted that he was due of Rs.47,370/- + Rs.9,900/- i.e. Rs.57,270/- towards principal outstanding as on the date of pre-closure of the loan account. But the appellant has collected excessive charges of Rs.12,230/- penal interest and Rs.1,500/- as service charges.
10. Perused the order, we noticed that as per schedule 1 of the loan agreement, the appellant has to collect the 3% foreclosure charges on principal outstanding, if the loan account foreclosed after 24 months and service charges of Rs.1,500/-. As per the admission of the respondent as on 11-10-2011, the respondent was outstanding due of Rs.57,270/- then 3% interest on the said amount would be Rs.1,718/-. However the appellant has charged of Rs.12,230/- which is not in accordance with the law. Since the respondent had foreclosed the loan account on 11-10-2011 i.e. after 24 months, he is liable to pay 3% interest fore-closer charges on principal outstanding only.
11. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper and no interference required.
12. Perused the order sheet we noticed that on 4.4.2022 this Commission has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. However, on the same day at 3.10 p.m. the appellant appeared and filed an application under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order of dismissal. Considering the submission and memorandum of facts, this commission has recalled the dismissal order on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and also on 14-11-2022 this Commission has granted time for arguments of appellant on the payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-and both costs have not paid by the appellant till today. As such, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
The impugned order dated 26.07.2013 passed by Kodagu District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madikeri in CC.No.07/2012 is hereby confirmed.
The appellant is directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- payable to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.
The amount in deposited here transfer to the District Commission payable to the complainant by deducting above amount.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
SMT.SUNITA C.BAGEWADI SRI.RAVI SHANKAR
(Lady Member) (Judicial Member)
