This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. Pasupuleti Srinivas, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. B. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for Opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri R.Kiran Kumar, Member)

          This Complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is having SB A/c. vide No.50010234388, and availed a mortgage loan from the branch of opposite party On 10-06-2009 for Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @16.25% per annum vide loan account No.50014877858 and the same will be repayable @ Rs.4,651/- for 84 months.  The complainant submitted that he paid the loan amount within 3 years, but the authorities of opposite party imposed huge amounts by stating supervisory charges to supervise the vacant plots of the complainant, which were mortgaged at the time of availing loan, at the time of paying last installment the complainant asked the opposite party about the excess charges shown in the statement, thereby opposite party replied that extra charges will be returned thereafter accordingly the complainant paid the same.  The complainant further submitted that he approached the opposite party to take back the extra charges paid by him, but on every occasion the opposite party used the postpone the matter on different pretexts, on the other hand the opposite party gave evasive reply,  for that the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party on 07-02-2013 demand to pay the extra charges of Rs.9,848/- (Supervising charges) imposed on him at the time of closing the loan account, even after receipt of notice the opposite party did not choose to come forward to pay the amount, the act of the opposite party is nothing but the deficiency of service as such there is no hope of recovering the amount from the opposite party without the help of the Forum for that the complainant filed this complaint.

3.       To support his case the complainant filed the following documents which are marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3. 

4.       On receipt of notice, opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  In their counter, the opposite party denied the allegation made by the complainant that “they had imposed huge amounts towards supervisory charges to supervise the vacant plot of the complainant which was mortgaged at the time of availing loan”.  The opposite party submitted that as per the banking regulation act and rules and having followed the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India issued from time to time, the opposite party used to collect  the service charges, as per clause No. 5 of inspection and supervising charges, not only collected from the complainant, but also from all the customers whoever approaches for advances, there is no mistake or omission committed by the opposite party in collecting service charges from the complainant, there is no enmity against the complainant in collecting huge service charges or supervising charges as alleged, the complaint itself is devoid of merits and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       To support their case the opposite party filed the following documents and marked as exhibits B1 to B3.

Ex.B1:- Copy of Bank Instruction Circular No.10221/MSD/2008-09/13,

            dt.30-12-2008.

Ex.B2:- Copy of Bank Instruction Circular No.11613/DEV/2011-12/48,

            dt.29-10-2011.

Ex.B1:- Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.06.02.2013.

6.       Upon perusing the material available on record following points arose for consideration, is

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite

party?

Point:-

i)        The admitted facts of this case are that the complainant is having savings Bank account No.50010234388 in opposite party Bank and had availed mortgage loan for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 10-06-2009 with @16.25% per annum vide loan account No.50014877858, the complainant repaid the entire loan amount within short time i.e. within 3 years.  According to the complainant the authorities of opposite party imposed huge amounts by stating supervisory charges to supervise the vacant plot of the complainant, which were mortgaged at the time of availing loan, the same was asked by the complainant about the extra charges shown in the statement and the opposite party replied that those amounts (extra charges) will be returned thereafter, accordingly complainant paid the entire amount as shown in the statement.  According to the complainant thereafter, he approached the opposite party in order to collect the extra charges paid by him but the opposite party used to postpone the same, complainant got issued notice on 07-02-2013 to the opposite party demanding to repay the extra charges of Rs.9,848/- even after receipt of the notice as the opposite party failed to pay the same the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. 

          From the document/ Loan Account statement (Exhibit B3) submitted by the opposite party we observed that the opposite party collected inspection / supervision charges @1,500/- and Rs.155/- for insurance / sup charges per half yearly from 30-09-2009 to 30-09-2011.  From 31-12-2011 they collected Rs.827/- per each quarter and also we observed from the complaint, the complainant submitted that the opposite parties imposed Rs.9,848/- as extra charges (supervising charges) at the time of closing the loan account, but the complainant failed to explain his contention in detail.  To support their case the opposite party filed Instruction Circular No. 11613/DEV/2011-12-48 dt. 29-11-2011 for service charges w.e.f. 1-12-2011 and they relied on Rule B.3.5. Inspection and supervising charges (other than agricultural credit but including loans under retail credit). 

As per the Circular B.3.5.:-

From the record we observed that both parties simply filed documents, but failed to explain in detail about the collection of excess amount in question.  In these circumstances, we are directing the complainant to approach the opposite party with specific representation and on such representation the opposite party is directed to look into the matter and settle the same as per the rules and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.

7.       In the result, the complainant is directed to approach the opposite party with specific representation and on such representation the opposite party is directed to settle the same as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly this complaint is disposed off.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 26^th day of November, 2015.

Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

     Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam