By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Facts:-

Complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.1,44,000/- from opposite party Bank on 15-01-1998 on the security of 44 cents of property. He was informed that the interest rate would be less than 13%. The loan period was 15 years. Complainant thereafter went to Gulf. Due to financial stringencies he committed default in repayment. He states that the Bank continuously harassed his wife and family threatening attachment and sale of property. Several demand notices were send by Bank. On 10-6-2005 sale Notice was issued. On 26-7-2005 complainant requested opposite party to receive Rs.3,43,507/- as demanded by them and return the documents. Bank did not heed to the request. Complainant had executed a power of attorney in favour of his wife. The attempts made by his wife to sell the property failed and he had to incur financial loss since he was forced to sell the property at lower price. On 15-10-2005 release deed was executed in favour of him by the Bank. But documents were returned only on 16-3-2006. That he is liable to pay interest @ 12% only and that Bank has collected illegal interest. Hence this complaint claiming refund of the excess interest collected and to pay compensation for financial loss and deficiency in service.

2. Opposite party filed version admitting the loan transaction. It is submitted that the loan was sanctioned on agreed terms and conditions which was agreed and accepted by the complainant by executing deeds. The agreed rate of interest is 17½ %. The loan period was 15 years which was to be repaid in fixed instalments of fixed tenure. There is a stipulation for penal interest @ 2% for default. The rate of interest as decided by Reserve Bank of India and NABARD are also applicable. Complainant committed default. Bank send notices demanding to repay the loan. There was no harassment on the part of Bank and Bank had acted only as per law and rules of procedure for recovery of loan. Complainant has no right to sell the property pledged to the Bank. The complainant cleared the dues only on 26-7-2005 and the documents were returned to him. There is no deficiency in service and that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.

3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 marked for him. Counter affidavit was filed by opposite party and Exts.B1 to B4 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

4. The main allegation of the complainant is regarding the interest collected while repaying the loan. Apart from the vague affirmation that he was assured that the interest would be less than 13%, the complainant does not have any specific case as to what was the agreed rate of interest. Ext.B1 is the loan application and loan sanction form in which complainant has signed stating that he agrees and accepts the conditions stated therein. The interest rate stipulated in Ext.B1 is 17.5% and default interest is 2.5%. Therefore the contention of the complainant that he is liable to pay interest @ 12% is unacceptable to us.

5. The further submission is that he was not able to sell the property for the amount as per the agreement entered by his wife with a prospective purchaser. That due to the act of opposite party this sale agreement could not be fulfilled and hence he incurred financial loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. Ext.A5 is the agreement for sale which is relied by the complainant. This agreement is dated, 25-7-2005. Admittedly complainant has repaid the loan only on 26-7-2005. So the act of the complainant in attempting to sell a property upon which the Bank has first charge cannot be supported by the law of land. Hence this contention is untenable.

6. There is no cogent evidence apart from the vague affirmations to substantiate that the Bank harassed his wife and family persistently. Ext.A1 is the demand notice and Ext.A2 is the sale auction notice. These are only procedures adopted by Bank in the process of recovery of loan and cannot be considered as harassments. From the totality of facts, circumstances, and evidence adduced by parties we have to hold that complainant has failed to establish a case in his favour. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

7. In the result, we dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs.

Dated this 11th day of August, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5

Ext.A1 : Demand Notice dated 07-7-2007 issued by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A2 : Sale Auction Notice dated, 10-6-2005 issued by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the 'Gahan Ozhimuri' dated, 15-10-2005.

Ext.A4 : Power of attorney on behalf of complainant.

Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the agreement between complainant's wife and Abdul Rasheed,

S/o Chakkipparambath Saidalavi.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B4

Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the housing loan application form submitted by

complainant to opposite party.

Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the receipt of Rs.44,000/- dated, 21-2-1998 from

opposite party to complainant.

Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the page of Loan ledger relating to complainant.

Ext.B4 : Bye-law by opposite party.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER