ORDER

(Passed On 2/7/2015)

Per Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. This appeal is preferred by the original opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as appellant) against the order dated 25/11/2013, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 134/2012 by the District Forum, Amravati by which complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of original complainant (hereinafter referred as respondent) as setout in the complaint in brief is that he wanted to purchase two wheeler and for that purpose he made an application to appellant for grant of loan of Rs. 24,000/- to him, which was disbursed to him by the appellant on 21/02/2011. The said loan was to be repaid with interest in 30 monthly installment of Rs. 1,274/- each. The respondent continuously   paid 10 installments. He wanted to foreclose the loan account. When he approached to the appellant, he found that though he obtained loan of Rs. 24,000/- only, the appellant debited Rs. 29,000/- to his loan account. Therefore the appellant adopted unfair trade practice and rendered deficient service to him. He therefore filed Consumer Complaint before the Forum, praying that the excess amount of Rs. 5,000/- debited to his said loan account be credited to his account and interest be applied over actual loan of Rs. 24,000/- disbursed to him and he be granted compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards  unfair trade practice adopted by appellant, further compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and cost of Rs. 5,300/-,  that is total Rs. 30,300/- and further direction be given to appellant to return him RC book of the vehicle.
3. The appellant registered the complaint by filing written version. It raised preliminary objection that the compliant is not maintainable before the Forum, in view of arbitration clause in the loan agreement. It denied that loan of Rs. 24,000/- was disbursed to respondent. It submitted that actual loan of Rs. 29,400/- has been availed by the respondent and the balance margin money of Rs. 18,300/- has been paid directly by the respondent to the dealer of the vehicle from whom he purchased that vehicle. Interest charged was Rs. 8,820/-. Group insurance of amount of Rs. 500/- was also recovered from the respondent. The rate of interest fixed was 12 percent per annum and monthly EMI was Rs. 1,274/- Therefore the allegation made by the respondent are denied by the appellant and it is submitted that complaint be dismissed with heavy cost.
4. The Forum below after hearing both the parties and considering evidence brought on record found that after filing of the complaint, respondent repaid whole of the loan amount but the appellant has not returned to him the key and original papers of the vehicle and it constitute deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Therefore the Forum directed the appellant in under impugned order to return all the papers and key of the vehicle and to pay him compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- within 30 days from the date of that order and in case of default the said amount will be payable with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the original opposite party has preferred this appeal. We have heard appellant’s advocate and perused the documents and papers placed before us in appeal. We also perused written notes of arguments filed by the appellant’s advocate and respondent in person. The appellant failed to appear at the time of final hearing in this appeal.
6. The learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of arbitration clause in the loan agreement and that appellant has not proved that loan of Rs. 24,000/- only was advanced by the appellant to him. He also submitted that the Forum without any authority directed the appellant to return all the papers and key to the respondent without coming to the conclusion that the respondent has remitted all the dues. Thus according to him the direction given is illegal and hence he requested that the impugned order may be set aside.
7. The respondent in his written notes of arguments supported the impugned order and submitted in brief that no account statement was produced by the appellant and that after the decision of the complaint, the appellant handed over him the RC book and key of the vehicle and therefore it proves that the appellant adopted unfair trade practice. He therefore requested that direction be given to appellant to refund him the excess amount recovered from him and appeal may be dismissed.
8. Thus, it is not disputed that after filing of the complaint by the respondent, he repaid whole of the loan amount as per agreement.  Despite of his making full repayment as per agreement, the appellant did not return him the key and R.C. book of the vehicle which were taken by the appellant from him at the time of loan agreement. No reason is given by the appellant why the RC book and key of the vehicle were not returned to the respondent by it immediately after the repayment of full loan by him as per agreement. The same were returned to him by the appellant after the impugned order was passed against it to return the same to the respondent. Therefore it is clear that the appellant rendered deficient service to respondent and adopted unfair trade practice hence the Forum has rightly held the appellant responsible for payment of compensation and cost referred to above, to the respondent.
9. We also find that though there is an arbitration clause in the loan agreement, the complaint before the Forum is maintainable in view of well settled law. The appeal therefore is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost in appeal.
3. The copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.