SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint under sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking to get an order directing opposite party to refund Rs.7700/- the extra amount received by OP illegally ,with interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony together with cost of the proceedings of this complaint.
Brief facts of complainant’s case is that on 25/6/2021 the complainant availed an agricultural loan of Rs.2,25,000/- from the OP bank by pledging his gold ornaments. As per the stipulation mentioned in the loan agreement, 4% interest per month has to be paid by the complainant to OP , the period of loan is for 12 months and all the payment of loan has to be closed by June 2022. The complainant came before the bank for the payment of entire arrear amount on 27/6/2022 the OP refused to receive the entire arrear amount including 4% interest and told the complainant that they would accept the entire arrear with 7.5% interest. The OP disclosed that the complainant’s loan period was over on 24/6/2022 immediately two days before. The 25th & 26th June was 4th Saturday and sunday. Complainant submitted that he could not attend the bank of 24/6/22 due to rheumatic pain. Due to heavy pressure and insult on the part of OP the complainant paid the entire amount with 7.5% interest. On 20/8/2022 complainant send a lawyer notice to OP to give back the excess amount extorted by the OP, but the reply they are not willing to return back the money. There is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence filed this complaint.
After receiving notice OP entered appearance through counsel and filed written version. The contentions of OP are that the loan is tenable for five years period and each withdrawal has to be repaid within 12 months of its disbursement along with interest and charges. The interest applicable and agreed as per the loan agreement dtd.25//6/21 executed by the complainant is 11% with additional 2% overdue interest in case of delay in repayment in time. If the payment is within time the additional 3% interest subvention will be automatically credited by the system to his account and it is not a thing which this OP to do manually. The complainant did not pay the loan dues within time ie, on or before 24/6/2022 instead he came before the bank on 27/6/22 for renewing the loan. As the 12 month’s time fixed for repayment is over the complainant is not entitled for the 3% interest subvention for payment within one year and this OP is bound to collect 7% interest periodically charged to his account. This OP and its officials discharging their duties, obeying the banking rules and practice and they did not apply any pressure on him as alleged. To issue reply notice the OP explaining the real facts. There is no deficiency no negligence or deficiency of service on their part. Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
At the evidence stage, complainant filed chief affidavit and documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents got marked as Exts.A1 to A6. On the side of OP, the manager of OP bank filed his proof affidavit ,examined as DW1 and marked Exts.B1 to B3.PW1 and DW1 , were cross examined for the rival parties. After that the learned counsel for complainant filed argument note and OP’s learned counsel made oral argument.
We have perused the pleadings of both parties, evidence tendered by the parties, documents submitted before us and also considered the submissions of both learned counsels of the parties.
The questions to be decided are(1) whether the OP has charged and received extra amount towards interest illegally from the complainant during the time of renewing the gold loan of the complainant? (2) whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP bank?
Here there is no dispute that complainant had availed an agricultural loan of Rs.2,25,000/- from OP bank on 25/6/2021 by pledging his gold ornaments. There is also no dispute that the date to close or renew the loan on or before 24/6/2022, but the complainant came before the bank on 27/6/2022 for renewing the loan.
Complainant’s averment is that he could not attend the bank on 24/6/2022 due to rheumatic pain. Moreover as per stipulation in the loan agreement, the period of loan extends upto June last.
Since disbursement of loan was subject to the terms and conditions contained in the loan sanction agreement dtd.25/6/2021 marked as Ext.B1, we perused the document . It is seen that the bank has granted Kisan credit facility with a limit of Rs.2,25,000/-. Further borrower shall repay the loan with condition that “each withdrawal shall be repaid within 12 months of its disbursement with all interest charges commission cost etc and clear the entire liability with interest, charges, commission costs etc within the tenable date furnished in schedule C”. Schedule C describes as “ the limit is tenable for 5 years from the date of documentation subject to yearly review. Each withdrawal shall be repaid within 12 months of its disbursement either in installments or in lump sum with all interest charges etc of such disbursements”.
In terms of the loan agreement each withdrawal shall be repaid within 12 months of its disbursement. But it is a fact that complainant came to the OP bank only on 27/6/2022. Ext.A4 the medical certificate issued by Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Eranjoli, shows that the complainant was under her treatment due to Osteoarthetis from 30/2/2022 onwards. This certificate does not mean that complainant was under treatment and was not in a position to travel on 24/6/2022. Moreover the said Doctor who issued Ext.A4 was not examined. Hence from Ext.A4 certificate alone , we cannot presume that the complainant could not approach OP bank on 24/6/2022, due to Osteoartheitis.
In view of this, the short question, which has arisen for consideration in the matter, is as to whether the action taken by the OP bank in insisting to remit 7% interest on 27/6/2022 to review the loan in dispute , was justified. Perusal of the loan agreement, the action of the complainant to approach OP bank after 24/6/2022, and took stand to pay only 4% interest, are against the terms and conditions stipulated in Ext.B1 agreement executed between parties. Moreover as per clause (b) in Ext.B2 circular of NABARD states that “ An additional interest subvention @ 3% will be available to such of those farmers repaying on time i.e, from the date of disbursement of the short term loan upto the actual date of repayment by farmers or upto the due date fixed by the Bank for repayment of crop loans/WC loans, whichever is earlier, subject to a maximum period of one year from the date of disbursement. This also implies that the farmers, paying promptly, would get short term loans @ 4% p.a. during the year 2021-22 and 2022-23. This benefit would not accrue to those farmers who prepay after one year of availing crop loans/ WC loans. The additional interest subvention @ 3% will be continued in both FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23”.
From the above said facts, since complainant has to take necessary action in terms of the loan agreement, no fault could be found with the instruction of the OP bank to the complainant in remitting 7% interest charges, commission , cost to the loan amount. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts:
A1-Copy of bank pass book
2-Lawyer notice
A3-Acknowledgment card
A4- Certificate by the doctor(marked with objection)
A5-Reply notice
A6-postal receipt
B1- loan agreement executed between complainant& OP dt.25/6/21`
B2- Copy of NABARD circular No.49/2022
B3-account statement of complainant
PW1-Dinesh.A.C- complainant
DW1-Sarath.T.Raveendranath-OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
