Date of filing  : 21-03-2013

                                                                        Date of order :  26 -02-2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.92/2013

                     Dated this, the  26th    day of  February  2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL                               : MEMBER

T.Somashekharan Nair,                                                     : Complainant

S/o. Thangappan Pilla,

R/at. “Souparnika” House, Behind S.P. office,

Parakatta, Po.Vidyanagar, 671123,Kasaragod.Dt.

Now at K.N.Nivas, Majal, Mogral Puttur,

Po.Mogral Puttur, Kudlu. Village, 671128

(In Person)

The Branch Manager,                                                         : Opposite party

Kasaragod Dist.Co-operative Bank Ltd,

Kasaragod Town Branch, Po. Kasaragod. 671121.

(Adv.O.Vinodkumar, Kasaragod)

                                                                        O R D E R

SMT.P.RAMADEVI, PRESIDENT

            Complainant Shri Somashekharan filed this complaint against opposite party alleging deficiency in service against opposite party stating that while closing his loan account before maturity date the bank is imposed pre-closure  charges upon him and the bank if not entitled to impose such charges as per law.

2.         Opposite party entered in appearance and filed their version admitting that they collected 1.5% interest as pre-closure charges from the complainant as per law.

3.         Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A4 marked.  Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence and Exts B1 to B4 marked.

4.         Here the only question to be answered is whether the pre-closure charges collected by the opposite party from the complainant is illegal or not?

            In standard Chartered bank V Veerandra Rai (2013 II CPJ, 484) the Hon’ble National Commission observed that incase of premature closure the loanee agreed to pay pre-closure charges it cannot be refunded.

5.         Here an agreement is executed between the complainant and opposite party i.e. Ext.B3.  In Ext.B3 there is no specific mention about the details of premature closure or imposing of pre-closure charges or interest.   Eventhough the opposite party specifically stated in the agreement the terms and conditions of recovery of the loan and consequences of the non-payment of instalments, they failed to mention the rule regarding pre-closure of loan account.

6.         According to opposite party they acted upon the circular issued by the District Co-operative Bank i.e, Ext.A1.  Since there is no specific agreement between the complainant and opposite party regarding the collecting of pre-closure charges.  In the above mentioned decision it is specifically stated that if  it is agreed by the loanee it cannot be refunded.  But here absence of specific agreement with loanee the opposite party is liable to refund the pre-closure charges to the complainant.

            Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.4,061/- to the complainant and Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1to A3. Receipts issued by OP.

A4. 3-11-2011 letter sent by complainant to OP.

B1.7-6-2010 Copy of Circular.

B2. 19-02-2013. Complainant sent complaint before the Legal authority Kasaragod.

B3. Copy of Agreement.

B4. 5-12-2013 Details of Remittance made into loan A/c.439 of the Complainant issued by OP.

MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Pj