08/12/14

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT          

       This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in case no.CC 383 of 2012 allowing the case ex parte with cost of Rs.10,000/- and directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- within one month from the date of order failing which interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue on the aforesaid amount till realisation. 

            The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that for the purpose of agriculture he took loan from the OP Bank on 09/09/08 to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.  Thereafter on 25/05/09 due to ‘Aila’ storm, the Complainant sustained loss in connection with his cultivation and he requested the Manger of the Bank, but the Manager did not consider and asked him to make repayment.  Due to loss of crops he failed to repay the loan amount within time.  The loan amount was liquidated on 28/09/12.  But the Bank realized excess amount from him.  The agreed rate of interest was 7% p.a., but the Bank realized interest @ 14.75% p.a. from him.  For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that as per Clause-5 of the agreement the Bank was competent to charge interest as per the change of rate of interest from time to time.  It is contended that after the loan was liquidated and the documents were returned the Complainant cannot claim himself to be a consumer.  It is submitted that the District Forum cannot go beyond the terms of agreement arrived at by and between the parties and fake claim cannot be allowed.  In this connection the Learned Counsel has referred to the decisions reported in 2012 (4) CPR 450 (NC) [M/s Amitara Industries Ltd. vs. State Bank of India]; 2013 (3) CPR 512 (NC) [Renu Sharma vs. State Bank of Patiala].

            The Respondent in person has submitted that he did not know the contents of agreement and it was never explained to him at the time of disbursement of the loan amount. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the copy of the agreement wherefrom it appears that the rate of interest was 9% p.a. and it was liable to increase or decrease.  The Learned Counsel has referred to the statement of account dated 05/10/12 wherefrom it would appear that the rate of interest was 12.75% p.a. and as per statement dated 28/08/08 the rate of interest was 7% p.a.  The agreement was signed by the Complainant.  The OP Bank charged interest as per the agreement which was binding upon both sides.  There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.  The Learned District Forum was not justified in allowing the petition of complaint.  The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. 

            The Appeal is allowed.  We set aside the impugned judgment and order.  The petition of complaint is dismissed.