UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER 

            Filing the instant Appeal u/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 , the Appellant/Complainant challenged the judgment and order dated 24.07.15 passed by the Ld. District Forum Paschim Medinipur. In complaint case No. 28/2015  dismissing the complaint without cost.

            The brief facts, of the case are that the Appellant / Complainant , a retired Govt employee took a loan on 31.08.2006 amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/- from the Respondent /OP keeping his KVP for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as security on condition of a fixed rate of interest of 9.5% on the loan amount. The said loan , as narrated in the complaint , was supposed to be liquidated on maturity of the KVP lastly on 21.01.2014 . Further, the Respondent /OP , after adjustment of the loan , was supposed to refund the excess money to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant.

            The Respondent /OP, as per complaint , encashed the KVP of the Complainant deliberately on 28.01.2014 and  thereafter, on 24.02.2014 without liquidating the loan or refunding the excesses amount of Rs.40,000/- as committed earlier.

            The Respondent /OP, as narrated in the complaint , while computing interest on his loan , applied floating rate of interest instead of fixed rate of interest of 9.5 % as committed by it at the time of sanctioning the loan. The Respondent /OP, this way, allegedly , unlawfully  adjusted an amount of Rs. 42,227/- in excess from the KVP of the Appellant / Complainant and also went as far as to deduct  out of the way from the monthly pension of the Appellant /Complainant an amount of Rs. 8000/- as on January , 2015 @ Rs. 2,000/- per month reducing considerably his monthly pension , the sole means of his subsistence .

            Being aggrieved with the above mentioned deficiencies in rendering services by Respondent /OP, the Appellant / Complainant filed before the Ld. District Forum the complaint case which the impugned judgment and order relates to .

              Heard both sides through their Ld. Advocates .

              Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant / Complainant submitted in the same lines as narrated in the complaint.

            As submitted , the floating rate of interest on the loan amount as claimed by the Respondent /OP in its W.V. at para -18, was false and fabricated .

            Drawing attention to page -12 of the case record, being the limit proposal against Govt securities , the Ld. Advocate pointed out that the rate of interest was mentioned therein as 9.5 % with no remark as to whether it was floating one or fixed .

          The Ld. Advocate drew further notice of the Bench to running page No. 14 and submitted that the Respondent /OP was emphasizing more on the agreement for loan entered into by and between the parties where the said rate of interest of 9.5 % was recorded as variable with the rate fixed by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The Ld. Advocate maintained that the agreement was executed in a printed proforma in stereotype language applicable on all occasions in every type of loan. As submitted, the terms and condition mentioned therein sometimes skips the notice of the loanee and sometimes the loanees do not take much care to go through it meticulously.

            Referring to page No. 22, being the accounts statement in respect of the current account of the Appellant/Complainant where the type of the interest rate was shown as fixed , the Ld. Advocate maintained that different type of interest recorded in different documents issued by the by the Respondent /OP marked only the deficiency  on the part of the Respondent /OP which the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate and passed the impugned judgment and order with material irregularity.

            With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order .

           The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent /OP, on the contrary , submitted that Bank has no personal gain in charging interest , the rate of which varies with the guidelines of RBI. That the interest rate was variable with changing rate of interest in consonance with the RBI guidelines was made amply clear in the terms of the agreement in respect of the subject loan.

            The Appellant / Complainant , as the Ld. Advocate continued, was reluctant to appreciate the fact that the Respondent /OP did not have any discretion to change interest at any rate different from that as per RBI guidelines.

           As regards attaching pension account, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the same was done with concurrence of the Appellant/ Complainant who kept the pension account too under mortgage .

           The Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order in view of the given circumstances .

            Perused the papers on record. The material point to be decided on the instant occasion is whether the applicable interest on the subject loan was fixed one or variable .

            The Respondent /OP bank, being the loan disbursing authority, should have conveyed to the Respondent / Complainant in a very specific and unequivocal term , the rate of interest and its type . We have perused at least 3 documents , all of Respondent OP Bank, indicating the same rate of interest of different types in different documents living for anybody ample scope about actual type of interest being misinterpreted.

            The limit proposal against Govt securities at running  page 12 showed 9.50% rate of interest without any indication as to the type of interest. Running page No. 22 , the accounts statement in respect of the subject current account , revealed that the same rate of interest with type of the same recorded in clear term as fixed one .

            The agreement for loan at running page No. 14, however , recorded interest at the same rate chargeable subject to change in interest rates made by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. It may be mentioned here that the agreement was executed in a prescribed format in a most mechanical manner as the Banks used to execute in all kinds of loan and where the terms and condition noted in so many words hardly got importance to be gone through by any loanee , let alone the Appellant/ Complainant who had got an understanding about fixed rate of interest in the loan amount as it would be evident from the allied documents mentioned above other than the Agreement. The Agreement  did not reveal any record showing that the terms and conditions of the Agreement were read over and explain to the Appellant/Complainant.

          Going by our findings as mentioned above , we are of the opinion that the Respondent /OP bank had issued at least 3 documents showing therein the same rate of interest , type of which was ambiguously recorded different in different documents  leaving rooms for the Appellant/Complainant to misconceive or misinterpret the type of interest and that plea the Appellant / Complainant had resorted to on the instant occasion . Since the issue relates to transaction in terms of money , the Respondent /OP should have been more careful in mentioning rate and type of interest uniformly in all documents which it did not do and there the deficiency lies.

            The Respondent /OP took an absolutely illegal step in his further effort for adjusting the loan from his monthly pension which , as logically claimed , the sole means of subsistence of himself and his family . Here the deficiency of the Respondent / Complainant magnified to be a graver one.

            We,  however, don’t agree with the compensation amount claimed by the Appellant / Complainant which is too big an amount seemingly disproportionate to the amount prayed for refund .

               It is , therefore, ordered

            That the appeal be and the same is allowed in part with cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the Respondent /OP to the Appellant Complainant.

            The Respondent /OP is further directed to refund an amount of Rs. 51,000/- to the Appellant / Complainant and also a compensation of Rs. 7000/- for the mental agony and harassment sustained by the Appellant /Complainant because of the deficiency in service rendered by the Respondent / OP upon the Appellant /Complainant.

            The directions , as above , are to be carried out within 45 days from the date of the impugned order , failing which , simple interest @9% p.a. shall accrue to Rs. 58,000/- from the date of default till the amount is fully realized.

            The impugned judgment and order stands  set aside accordingly.