Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 04.08.2006 passed in Consumer Complaint NO.89/2004, Shri Uttamrao Bhimrao Pagare V/s.. The Nashik Merchants’ Co-op. Bank Ltd., Satpur Branch, Nashik, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (‘the Forum’ in short).
(2) It is the case of the Respondent/Original Complainant that on 18.01.2002 his vehicle met with an accident. Said vehicle was hypothecated with the Appellant/original Opponent and since Bank did not give no objection certificate to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company did not entertain the claim and as such the vehicle could not get repaired. Furthermore, the vehicle loan was taken in the year 2001. Thereafter, as per the directions of Reserve Bank of India rate of interests were released and the benefit of which was not given by the Bank to the Respondent/original Complainant and therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of the Bank is alleged. The Bank pointed out that contractual rate of interest was @19% per annum and interest rate was accordingly charged and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Since the vehicle was hypothecated, as per the agreement, on failure of the Complainant to take the insurance policy of the vehicle, such policy was required to be taken from time to time by the Bank and therefore, on that count there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. The Forum however upheld the case of the Complainant and directed the Bank to charge interest giving the benefit to the Complainant as per the Reserve Bank of India circulars and also awarded compensation of `15,000/- for taking the insurance policy when the vehicle was lying idle for want of repairs. Feeling aggrieved thereby Bank preferred this appeal.
(3) What we find is that the rate of interest charged is as per the agreement and therefore, referring to definition of deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. Further, since the Complainant himself failed to take the Insurance Policy as per the Agreement, the Bank was required to ensure to take the insurance policies, from time to time to protect the security. This is just to protect the interest of the Bank since vehicle was hypothecated with them as per the agreement between the parties. Therefore, on that count also there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.
(4) As far as the direction given per impugned order to charge interest as per the changed rate of interest per circulars of the Reserve Bank of India, we find such direction cannot be given considering the scope of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Besides this, as earlier observed, the Complainant is bound by the contractual rate of interest.
(5) For the Reasons stated above, we cannot support the impugned order. Holding accordingly, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order passed in Consumer Complaint No.89/2004 is set aside.
(iii) The Consumer Complaint stands dismissed.
(iv) In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced on 6th January, 2012.
