<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 09th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2566/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Dr.M.Shivalingam &P.Chandraprabha,No.5/26, BDA Flats,1st A Cross, Cambridge Layout, Halasuru,Bangalore.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1) Manager,Head-customer care,Standard Chartered Bank,Customer Care Unit,19, Rajaji Salai,Chennai – 600001.2) The Manager,The Standard Chartered BankHome loan department,Raheja Tower, M.G Road,Bangalore – 560001.Advocate – Sri.Madhusudan Prabhu<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the fore closure charges and the excessive interest collected and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed a home loan of Rs.13,00,000/- from OP under floating rate of interest on 30.07.2003 repayable in 84 EMI at the rate of Rs.4,871/-. Thereafter complainant thought of fore closure of the said loan under one time settlement and made submission of the desire to OP. OP took its own sweet time in consenting the fore closure of the home loan. In the mean time it went on imposing the interest though complainant was willing and ready to close the loan with a agreed rate of interest. OP enhanced the rate of interest at its whim and fancy thereby demanded to pay Rs.6,209/- extra. Complainant is not liable to pay fore closure charges. With all that OP collected Rs.30,774/-. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to set right the mistake and proceed in consonance with the loan agreement went in vain. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complaint is barred by time. Present complaint is as good as a suit filed for recovery of the amount in due such relief this Forum can’t grant. OP collected the interest and other service charges as per the loan agreement. Complainant is aware of the fact of imposing of the interest at the revised rate he is liable to pay the variable interest. The interest collected by the OP is in terms of the agreement. OP collected 2.5% as fore closure charges as per the condition No.16 of the loan agreement. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. Complainant based his claim only on the article published in the Hindu Paper on 02.10.2008. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a home loan of Rs.13,00,000/- from OP on 30.07.2003 repayable in 84 EMI at the rate of Rs.4,871/-. Now the main grievance raised by the complainant is with regard to the charging of the interest. The fact that complainant executed the loan agreement is not at dispute. When that is so, complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement. It is made substantially clear that complainant agreed to pay the interest, processing charges, free closure fees etc., and also undertook to pay variable interest which is revised time and again. With all that now the complainant has come up with an allegations that OP collected excessive fore closure charges, interest etc.<br /> <br /> 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case the approach of the complainant rather does not appears to be fair and honest. On the plain reading of the allegations made in the complaint it didn’t spell out the case of hiring of services and suffering from deficiency. Rather it discloses a case relating to settlement of account and for the balance in due on the basis of the account. In our view complainant did not fall with in ambit of section.2 (1) (c) & (e) of the C.P Act. If the complainant is so advised he can approach the civil court by filing a comprehensive civil suit and seek the appropriate remedy if at all he has paid in excess or OP recovered any interest or charges in excess as against the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.<br /> <br /> 8. We find substance in the contention of the OP that there is an inordinate delay in filing of this complaint. Why complaint kept mum for all these days without agitating his rights if at all there is collection of fore closure charges and interest as against the terms and conditions of loan agreement is not known. In all probability complainant must have been carried away by article published in the Hindu Paper dated 02.10.2008 then took a chance in filing this complaint. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 09th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br />