IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the 31^st day of January, 2011

Filed on 17.11.09

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.382/09

between

Complainant:-                                                 Opposite Party:-

            Sri.Santhosh Varghese,                                     State Bank of Travancore,

            Puthuparambil,                                      District Court Road Branch,

Thiruvambady, Alappuzha.                                Alappuzha.

 (By Adv.K.V.Subhakumar)                             (By Adv.M.Radhakrishnan Nair)                                

                                                                  O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The complainant case is that the complainant is a member of the “Vyapara Vyavasaya Ekopana Samathy”.  The complainant availed a loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/­(Rupees five lacs only) from the opposite party under the 'Traders Special Scheme' in March 2006. The interest charged was 9.75% per annum. Towards repayment of the said loan, the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs.6,29,250/-(Rupees six lac twenty nine thousand two hundred and fifty only) with the opposite party. As per the opposite party itself, the complainant had to remit Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) per month for a period of 36 months. As such, the complainant had remitted an excess amount of Rs.89,125/-(Rupees eighty nine thousand one hundred and twenty five only). But the opposite party demanded Rs.19,824/-(Rupees nineteen thousand eight hundred and twenty four only) from the complainant. The opposite party arbitrarily charged an enhanced rate of interest at the rate of 13.25% per annum. This conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. Aggrieved by this, complainant approached this Forum seeking a direction amongst other relief to the opposite party to reimburse the amount of Rs.89,125/-(Rupees eighty nine thousand one hundred and twenty five only) to the complainant, the amount which the complainant remitted excessively.

1. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that as on 30^th November 2009, an amount of Rs.20,056/-(Rupees twenty thousand fifty six only) was due from the complainant with subsequent interest of 13.25 per annum. Subsequently on disbursing the loan, the interest rate was enhanced to 13.25 per annum duly in line with the RBI guidelines, the opposite party submits. As per the agreement executed by the complainant in favor of the opposite party, the complainant has agreed that SBT  PLR/PTLR can be enhanced from time to time and the same if published in the Notice Board of the opposite party can be treated as sufficient notice to the complainant. The complainant had not paid any excess amount to the opposite party. As per the account maintained by the opposite party as to the complainant's loan, an amount of Rs.20,056/-(Rupees twenty thousand fifty six only) was due from the complaint as on 30^th November 2009. Thereafter, the complainant remitted Rs.14,250/­(Rupees fourteen thousand two hundred fifty only) and 2,250/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred and fifty only) on 31^st December 2009 and 13^th January 2009 respectively. The said payments were effected subsequent to the institution of the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief sought for in the complaint. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party submits.

2. On the side of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PWl, and no documents were marked. The evidence of the opposite party does not consist of any oral testimony, but the documents Exbts B1 to B6 were marked through the complainant.

3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions arise for consideration are:-

a) Whether the opposite party enhanced the rate of interest unilaterally against the terms of the loan agreement?

(b) Whether the complainant remitted excess amount which entitles him to get back the same?

4. We meticulously perused the materials placed on record by the parties. The complainant's availing of the loan or the particular quantum of the loan amount is not in dispute. The crux of the contentions of the complainant appears that at the time of availing the loan amount the interest offered by the opposite party was 9.75% per annum. Computing on the said basis the complainant had paid off the entire loan amount rather redundant to the same. According to the opposite party, during the course of the repayment of the loan amount, the interest rate was improved from 9.75% to 13.25% per annum. The enhancement of the rate of interest was strictly in line with the RBI norms as well as the terms of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party. The counsel for the opposite party drew our attention to the clause 2^nd of the Exbt B5 'Agreement for Hypothecation and Guarantee' wherein it is manifest that the revised rate of SBT PLR/PTLR published in the notice board of the branch shall be sufficient notice to the borrower. In the light of this, we are of the view that the contention of the complainant that there was no sufficient notice to him as to the enhancement of the interest rate will not hold water. More over, the change of interest and the date of the said change, all appear to have been specifically stated in Exbt B6 statement of account. What is more, even after the institution of the said complaint, it seems that the complainant has effected payments to the opposite party. The very said act and conduct of the complainant definitely deals dent on the contention of the complainant that he had effected payment of excess amount and as such he is entitled to the reimbursement of the same. Viewing from any angle, we regret, we cannot accept the contentions of the complainant.

For the forgoing facts and findings made herein above, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of January, 2011.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi     

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Santhosh Varghese (Witness)

Evidence of the opposite party:- 

Ext. B1            -           The copy of the application form – Traders Special

Ext. B2 -           The copy of the sanction / Arrangement Letter

Ext. B3 -           The copy of the Receipt dated, 06.03.2006 for Rs.5,00,000/-

Ext. B4 -           The copy of the Receipt dated, 06.03.2006 for Rs.5,00,000/-

Ext. B5 -           The copy of the agreement for Hypothecation and Guarantee

Ext. B6 -           The copy of the Statement of Account

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-