Instead of paying Rs.6,650/- per month by way of installments, petitioner kept on depositing @ Rs.5,000/- per month.  According to him, he was orally informed by one of the employees of the respondent that the installment amount was Rs.4,600/- per month.  The respondent has claimed the balance amount along with interest/penal interest which the petitioner has paid and is also paying the installments @ Rs.6,650/- per month.  Petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking the reliefs as under:

-2-

1.                That the penal interest alongwith Normal, Double or Triple interest may kindly be waived off; and excess margin money i.e. more than 20% may be adjusted;

2.                That the compensation of Rs.1 Lacs on account of deficiency in service for harassment and Mental Agony.

3.                Costs of Litigation to the extent of Rs.10,000/- may be given to the complainant.

4.                With costs of Rs.5,000/-;

5.                That the account of the complainant which is declared as N.P.A. without any reason and Notice and the same may kindly be declared as Regular Account.

6.                It is further prayed that any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper according to the facts of the case may also be granted in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps.

District Forum dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/-.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by observing thus:

“A perusal of the grounds of appeal clearly indicates that at para No.2, the complainant/appellant herself has admitted to having given 24 post-dated cheques for an

-3-

amount of Rs.6650/-.  It is thereafter the contention of the appellant that in the month of April when her husband visited the OP bank its official namely Sh.V.K. Madan verbally informed the husband of the appellant that the installment of Rs.4600/- would become due.  The appellant has further averred that she started depositing Rs.5,000/- for the installment to reduce the burden of her loan.  There is, however, no evidence produced by the complainant to support this averment.  There is no affidavit or evidence given by Sh.V.K. Madan to have given any such assurance to the husband of the complainant nor is there any other evidence from any independent witness confirming the same.  It has also been stated in the grounds of appeal that the learned District Forum had failed to take into account the documents submitted by the appellant, however there is no detail given of these documents, which have not been considered by the learned District Forum.  The learned District Forum in the impugned order has duly considered all the relevant documents have reflected the same in the impugned order which is very detailed and which has addressed each and every grouse of the complainant.  From the evidence on record as well as the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant, we find no material to convince us that the complainant was not aware of the installment of the loan amount being Rs.6650/-.  There is

-4-

also no evidence on record to indicate that this installment was subsequently reduced to Rs.4600/-.  By her own admission from May 2005 the complainant had been paying an installment of only Rs.5000/-.  Thus from the evidence on record, it stands fully proved that the complainant had not been paying the full amount of the installment due and therefore the bank was entitled to charge her penal interest for the lesser payment as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.  The complainant has further not produced any evidence to prove that the interest rates charged by the bank were not in consonance with the agreement Annexure C-7, which is on record.  In this view of the matter, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned order, which is very well reasoned and detailed.  Consequently agreeing with the view of the learned District Forum that this is a frivolous complaint, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed and the impugned order is sustained.”

We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission.  The story put up by the petitioner that he was orally advised to pay Rs.4,600/- per month is incorrect.  Otherwise this cannot be accepted in view of the written contract in which the installments is shown to be

-5-

Rs.6650/-.  Petitioner himself was paying Rs.5,000/- per month.  It is not disputed that the installment fixed were at Rs.6,650/- and the petitioner was aware of this fact.  The story put up by him that he did not know that the installments were of Rs.6,650/- per month has been found to be incorrect by the fora below.  This finding is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed.