KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                     VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM   

                                           APPEAL NO.674/05

                            JUDGMENT DATED 30.8.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                --  MEMBER

1.      The Branch Manager,

Weizman Homes Ltd.

Civil Station Road, Palakkad.

2.      The Managing Director,                            --  APPELLANTS

          Weizmann Hoames Ltd.

          Corporate Office No.28,

          Centunary Building, M.G.Road,

          Bangalore 560 001.

   (By Adv.Rajesh Thomas & Ors.)

                   Vs.

T.P.Narayana Pisharady,

S/0 Late T.P.Achutha Pizharady,

Harisankar Road, (Siva Prasadam)                   --  RESPONDENT

Tharekkad Road, Palakkad 678 001.

  ( M/s.V.Chithambaresh)

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.186/04 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad.  The opposite parties/Financiers are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.15,680/- collected as preclosure charges from the complainant.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he availed a housing loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the opposite parties in the month of August 2002 which is to be repaid in 144 instalments of Rs.4,036/- each with a floating rate of 12% interest.  He was making payments.  He was informed that as on 1.4.2004 the outstanding   balance due is  Rs.2,89,640/-.  He repaid the entire loan amount on 29.7.04.   A sum of Rs.3,01,437/- was collected by the opposite parties.  It is his case that amounts collected are in excess and at any rate he is not bound to repay the pre-closure charges.

          3. Only the first opposite party the Branch Manager entered appearance and filed version.  It is contended that preclosure charges at the rate of 5% was collected as per the condition in the agreement.  The same amounted to Rs.15,680/-.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective parties and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4.

          5. The Forum has noted that the complainant is a physically handicapped person and he repaid the loan by selling his house.  The Forum has noted that in the case of another person, one C.V.Omana Amma the opposite parties had refunded the preclosure charges.

          6. We find that the entire loan amount has been repaid by the complainant.  The loan amount with interest has been paid by 2 years after availing the loan.  Hence, we find that no loss is occasioned to the opposite parties/appellants.  It appears that the condition with respect to the preclosure charges is an unreasonable one.  In fact, repayment of outstanding loan amounts early should be encouraged.  The complainant has repaid the loan amount with scheduled equated monthly instalments at one instant.   Hence, there can be no loss at all to the appellants.  The person availing loan has no other go but to sign on the dotted line.  Hence levying preclosure charges contenting that it is a condition in the agreement as done by the appellant is not all justifiable. The above condition in the loan agreement cannot be said to be with the  consent of the complainant.   Levying preclosure charges amounts to unfair trade practice.  Hence we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU  --  PRESIDENT

 M.K.ABDULLA SONA          --  MEMBER

s/L