| Complaint Case No. CC/310/2017 | | ( Date of Filing : 27 Oct 2017 ) |
| | | | 1. H.T.Venkategowda and Meenakshi | | H.T.Venkategowda, S/o late Thimmegowda, Hagaranahalli Village, Mardur Post, Kasava Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore Dist. | | Mysuru | | Karnataka | | 2. Meenakshi | | 2. Smt. Meenakshi, D/o H.T.Venkategowda, W/o jayaramegowda.U.J., Hagaranahalli Village, Mardur Post, D/o H.T.Venkategowda, W/o Jayaramegowda.U.J., Hagaranahalli Village, Mardur Post, Kasaba Hobli, Hu |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. The Karnataka Bank | | The Manager, The Karnataka Bank, Hunsur,Mysore District | | Mysuru | | Karnataka |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.310/2017 DATED ON THIS THE 15th June 2018 Present: 1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT 2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C. B.E., LLB., PGDCLP - MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S | | : | - H.T.Venkategowda, S/o Late Thimmegowda, Hagaranahalli Village, Mardur Post, Kasaba Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District.
- Smt.Meenakshi, D/o H.T.Venkategowda, W/o Jayaramegowda.U.J., Hagaranahalli Village, Mardur Post, Kasaba Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District.
Now Comp. No.2 R/at No.177, 3rd Cross, 1st main, Janabharathi Layout, 1st Block, Holaragereahalli, K.S.Town, Bangalore-60. (Sri B.S.Nagaraj, Adv.) | | | | | | | | V/S | | OPPOSITE PARTY/S | | : | The Manager, The Karnataka Bank, Hunsur Branch, Hunsur, Mysuru District. (Sri Subramanya.J, Adv.) | | Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service | Date of filing of complaint | : | 27.10.2017 | Date of Issue notice | : | 31.10.2017 | Date of order | : | 15.06.2018 | Duration of Proceeding | : | 7 MONTHS 18 DAYS | | | | | | | | | |
Sri. Devakumar,M.C. Member - The complainants have filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party Bank, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to refund the excess amount paid by them, along with interest at 18% p.a. from 29.05.2017 to till the payment and also to issue loan clearance certificate in respect of the land bearing survey Nos.17, 67 and 90 and to pay compensation for the mental agony, litigation expenses with such other reliefs.
- The complainant have borrowed a “joint agricultural loan” of a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- on various dates and at different rate of interest, by mortgaging their agricultural land from opposite party Bank. However, they pleaded that a total sum of Rs.10,38,943/- and Rs.4,00,953/- have been repaid on various dates. Therefore, submits by deducting the amount demanded i.e. Rs.1,89,670/- from Rs.4,00,953/-, demanded for refund of a sum of Rs.2,11,283/- with interest at 18% p.a. and issue of clearance certificate with other reliefs.
- The opposite party submits that, the complainants borrowed six loan, out of which two loans were Gold loans. The complainants agreed to pay the actual rate of interest fixed by the bank from time to time and in case of non-payment of EMI or interest by due date, the arrears carries an overdue interest at 3% p.a. The complainants with their children borrowed loan under different schemes on various dates and part of the amount has been paid. Thereby, the allegation of levy of exorbitant rate of interest is denied. The overdue and interest details were clearly narrated in the reply notice. Hence, the allegation of deficiency is denied and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
- To establish the facts, both parties led evidence by filing affidavits and relied on several documents. Written arguments filed and heard the counsel for both sides. Perused the material on record and posted for orders.
- The points arose for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether complainants establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite party Bank, for not refunding the amount received by them on various dates towards clearance of the loan amount and thereby they are entitled for the reliefs sought?
- What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- In the negative. Point No.2 :- Does not call for discussion. Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: - Point No.1:- Admittedly, the complainants borrowed loans from the opposite party Bank on different dates and repaid part of the amount towards discharge of their obligation. They have also agreed to pay an extra amount on the overdue loan amount as on the date of payment. The complainants failed to establish that they have repaid the entire loan amount on various dates, but the opposite parties claims that the complainant and their children jointly borrowed various loans on different dates and not paid the due amount as on the agreed dates. Thereby, due to fluctuation in the rate of interest, the complainants were still owes dues to pay the amount towards the loan. However, the documents placed on record to establish the contention are not properly represented. Thereby, we opine that, the matter on hand, needs to be dealt in detail to elicitate the truth, which cannot be done in summary proceedings before the Forum. However, we opine that, the complainant can seek remedy before the appropriate Forum. As such, the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Hence, point No.1 answered in the negative.
- Point No.2:- In view of the observations in point No.1, this point does not call for discussion.
- Point No.3:- In view of the observation in point No.1, we proceed to pass the following:-
:: O R D E R :: - The complaint is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
| |
