Date of Filing :26.07.2013

Date of Disposal :15.02.2022

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:15.02.2022

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH : PRESIDENT

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

APPEAL No.1161/2013

The Manager,

Canara Bank
Ashoka Road,

Tumkuru
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,

Mr A Muniraja
(By Mr H S Rukkoji Rao, Advocate)                                Appellant   

-Versus-

1.  Mrs Puttagangamma

     W/o Mr Ikkalaiah
     R/o Kittaganahalli,

     Gulur Hobli, Tumkuru Tq. & Dist.
     
2.  Mr Lakshminarayna,

     S/o Mr Narayanappa
     Sanakapura, Gulur Hobli,

     Tumkuru Tq. & District                                            Respondents
                                       

:ORDER:

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by OP1aggrieved by the Order dated 28.06.2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.197/2012 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkuru (for short, the District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.  Since none appeared for the Respondent, arguments of the Respondent is taken as heard.

3.       Perused the Impugned Order, Records & Grounds of Appeal.   On perusal of the records, it appears that the OP2 and Complainant being Agriculturists, availed Loans of Rs.14,25,000/- and Rs.4,10,000/- respectively with both being surety for the other, from OP1 by depositing the Title Deeds of agricultural land for purchase of a JCB and a Tractor, by paying margin amount of Rs.4,75,000/-& Rs.1,48,500/- respectively, in the year 2007 with a condition to repay the said JCB loan in monthly instalments of Rs.23,000/-with interest from 27.03.2007 and for Tractor Loan an Annual sum of Rs 45,556/- with interest from 27.03.2017 respectively and the JCB vehicle was registered in the name of OP2, whereas, the Tractor vehicle was registered in the name of the Complainant. The records also reveals that the Complainant had repaid the amount as agreed upon without any default to OP1.However, the allegation of the Complainant is that,OP1 Bank had recovered an excess amount of Rs.37,461/- from him, which is appearing in the Statement of Loan account; also seized the Tractor without giving any notice, OP1 also imposed a cost of Rs.7,000/- on 17.11.2011 which is illegal and OP1 failed to set right the matter inspite of repeated requests and hence, this Complaint has been filed.   

4.       OP1 has taken a stand that there is a due still on the Tractor Loan by the Complainant, hence, he is not entitled to receive back the margin amount, since Loan and margin amount was equivalent to the value of the respective vehicle shown in the Quotation and that the recovery of excess amount was not intentional but, only due to the technical error and the same has been re-credited to the Loan Account of the concerned.

5.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part with cost of Rs.2,000/- and directed OP1 to pay a sum of Rs.3,785/- & Rs.11,600/-, in total Rs.15,385/- to the Complainant with future interest @ 9% p.a from the date of Complaint, till realisation, within 45 days from the date of the Order etc.,

6.       According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, whatever the  excess amount said to have been charged, namely, Rs 37,461/- has been adjusted towards the outstanding of the Loan on 12.12.2011,on account of NPA, as the Complainant was due to pay a sum of  Rs.5,48,240/- towards his Loan Account.

7.       Further, the Complainant has given consent letter as per Ex-R4 for registering the JCB in the name of OP2.  Likewise OP2 also given consent letter for registering the tractor in the name of complainant.  Further, the allegation of the Complainant is that, OP1 had recovered excess amount over & above the required loan instalments with regard to Tractor Loan and the excess amount of Rs.37,461/- was remitted back by OP to the loan account of Complainant on 12.12.2011.  Thus, such recovery of Rs.37,461/- is not intentional but due to technical problem from OP1’s end. A sum of Rs.7,000/- was also said to have been recovered by the Appellant/OP1 on 17.11.2011as seizing charges towards seizure of the Tractor vehicle, however, the District Forum had Ordered for return of the amount of Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant.  In view of the fact that seizure of the vehicle in charging Rs.7,000/- cannot be said  to be excess amount recovered by the Appellant. Further, we are of the considered view that the District Forum ordering for refund of the Penal Interest of Rs.4,600/- to the Complainant is in-correct, since the Complainant is having a due towards his Loan Account.  In the circumstances, the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside by allowing the Appeal.  In the result, we proceed to pass the following

O R D E R

          Appeal is allowed in part.   Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 28.06.2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.197/2012 bythe District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkuru is set aside and consequently the Complaint stands Dismissed.

The statutory Amount in Deposit is ordered to be transfer to the District Forum for needful.

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

Lady Member                Judicial Member              President

*s