The Chief Manager, State Bank of Mysore The Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, B.M.T.C.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:13.10.2008 Date of Order:21.01.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2009 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2209 OF 2008 Byra Shettappa, S/o Late Gurusiddappa, Occ: Driver, B.No. 9825, Depot No.2, B.M.T.C, Bangalore-27. Complainant V/S 1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of Mysore, P & S Banking Division, No. 644/645, Avenue Road, Bangalore-02. 2. The Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, BMTC Shantinagar, Bangalore-560 027. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case are that, complainant has opted/agreed to purchase Bajaj two wheeler vehicle by raising loan of Rs.58,402/- from opposite party No.1 in 2003. Loan is repayable in 48 installments. Accordingly, the loan with interest has been recovered at Rs.1,495/- per month in salary from January-2003 up to January-2008 by the opposite party No.2 and same was sent to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 sent letter. The loan has been cleared and requested to issue no objection certificate. Complainant deposited Rs.3,979/- on 10/03/2008 and accordingly Bank has issued no objection certificate. The complainant issued legal notice and demanded for refund of Rs.3,979/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 appeared through Advocate and opposite party No.2 remained absent. Defense version filed stating that the amount recovered from the complainant of Rs.3,979/- was towards revised rate of interest, delayed payment. Revised rate of interest was calculated as per the revised Circular. Same is reflected in the loan statement of account. Opposite party has explained the complainant that he has to pay Rs.3,979/- towards the delayed payment along with change in the rate of interest. Opposite party No.2 has not collected monthly installments regularly. The letter written by the opposite party No.2 to the opposite party No.1 with regard to no due certificate clearly explains the same. Complainant after satisfying himself regarding delayed payment and change in rate of interest paid the amount. It is false that the opposite party No.1 collected excess amount. For all these reasons stated above, opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. 3. Arguments are heard. 4. Perused the various documents and the account statements and deed of hypothecation executed by the complainant in favour of Bank. The opposite party No.1 has produced letter of opposite party No.2 addressed to opposite party No.1. This letter is dated 27/02/2008. By this letter it is very clear that the opposite party No.2 has send the EMI amount to the opposite party No.1 by making delay on account of some procedural reasons and hurdles. Therefore, it is clear that the EMIs have not been deposited or sent to the opposite party No.1 Bank within the time agreed for. Therefore, naturally the Bank has charged interest on delayed payments. Secondly as per the opposite party there was a revision of interest. Therefore, as when the interest was revised by the Bank, the Bank has charged rate of interest as per the revised rate. As per the deed of hypothecation executed by complainant in favour of Bank he has agreed for revision in rate of interest from time to time. The Bank was authorized to charge interest as per the revised rate of interest from time to time. So, under these circumstances the complainant now cannot say that Bank is not entitled to charge revised rate of interest. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the contention of the complainant that Bank has recovered excess amount of Rs.3,979/- from him. There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Secondly, the complainant should have approached banking ombudsman for getting redressal to his grievances. The R.B.I has introduced Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 and the customer has got right to file complaint U/Sec.8 of the scheme to the Banking Ombudsman and the Banking Ombudsman may deal with the matter and after going through the records the Banking Ombudsman will pass award and copy of the award will be sent to the complainant and also to the Bank. So, under these circumstances, this is not a case to be agitated before the District Fora. The complainant will be free to approach Banking Ombudsman under Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. With this observation, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 5. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER Rhr.,
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
