SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

         Complainant has filed this complaint under sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking to  get an order directing opposite parties to refund Rs.161551/-  to the complainant together with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and also cost of the proceedings.

   Brief facts of  the complainant’s case are that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on 3/3/2017 from the OP bank for the construction of a  complex@12% interest and the period of loan was 10 years and the monthly amount  to be paid  is Rs.1,25,000/-.  After three years of regular payment, the complainant approached the OP to take over the loan to another bank and at that time, OP bank has levied, take over charge of Rs.161551/-.   Complainant submitted that  several times he asked the OPs to revise  their illegal charges but they were not ready .  According to complainant, the act of OP interacting  such a big amount Rs.161551/-, violating the loan agreement and without considering the situation of the complainant is arbitrary and quietly an  unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.   Hence the complaint.

   After receiving notices, OPs filed written version admitting the  availing of loan and levied take over charge of Rs.1,61,551/- from the complainant. OPs submitted that as per the bank’s loan schedule, if an existing loan is taken over by another bank of financial institution, then a penalty of 2% on outstanding balance is to be levied.  At the time of takeover  of the loan of the complainant, the outstanding principal amount was Rs.68,45,422/- and so the 2^nd OP has collected Rs.1,36,908/- , the 2% of penalty on takeover  amount  along with GST of Rs.24643/- and the details regarding the takeover charges was explained to the complainant by  the 1^st OP and this OPs  have no choice to return the amount already collected .  There is no deficiency in  service on their part and hence  prayed for  the dismissal of complaint.

   At the evidence stage, complainant  has filed his proof affidavit and examined s PW1, marked Exts.A1 to A4.     Ext.A1 is copy of agreement, Ext.A2 is  a letter dtd,7/12/16 issued by 1^st OP, Ext.A3 &A4 are receipts dtd.9/9/21,10/2/2022.  On the side of OP, the Branch manager of 2^nd OP filed his proof affidavit and examined as DW1, marked Ext.B1 circular of Kerala Bank dtd.27/4/2021.

    The question to be decided is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs in collecting Rs.161551/-, towards over charges, in case of take over the loan to another bank?

   Here the undisputed facts are that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on 3/3/2017 from the OP bank for the construction of a  complex@12% interest and the period of loan was 10 years and also admitted that  a loan agreement was executed between parties.  Further  no dispute regarding  the rate of interest@12% as per agreement.  It is also a fact that  after three years, the complainant approached the OP to take over the loan to another bank and at that time, OP bank has levied, take over charge of Rs.161551/-.

   Complainant alleged that there was no such mention of such a  charge anywhere in the agreement.  According to complainant, the act of OP extracting such a big amount Rs.161551/-, violating the loan agreement and without considering the situation of the complainant is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.

On the other hand OPs submitted that at the time of availing loan amount, the complainant executed a loan agreement through his power of attorney Vincy Varghese( wife) and clause 13 of the  agreement clearly stated that “ കേരള സഹകരണസംഘം നിയമത്തിലെ 69-ാം വകുപ്പും ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട ചട്ടങ്ങളും അനുസരിച്ചുള്ള നടപടിക്രമങ്ങൾക്ക്  ഞാൻ/ഞങ്ങൾ വിധേയരായിരിക്കുമെന്നും  ഇതിനാൽ സമ്മതിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു.  ഈ വായ്പയെ  സംബന്ധിച്ച് കാലാകാലങ്ങളിൽ ബേങ്ക്  നിശ്ചയിക്കുന്ന ഉപനിയമങ്ങൾ അനുസരിച്ച് ഞാൻ/ഞങ്ങൾ  പ്രവർത്തിച്ചുകൊള്ളാമെന്നും സമ്മതിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു. ബാങ്കിൽ ഒടുക്കാനുള്ള വായ്പ മുതൽ പലിശ എന്നിവക്കുവേണ്ടി ആർബിട്രേഷൻ കേസ് കൂടാതെ തന്നെ ബാങ്കിന്ർറെ യുക്താനുസരണം എന്തും പ്രവർത്തിക്കുന്നതിനും ടി ബാങ്കിനു പൂർണ്ണാധികാരം തന്നിരിക്കുന്നു . As per the bank’s loan schedule, if an existing loan is taken over by another bank of financial institution, then a penalty of 2% on outstanding balance is to be levied.  At the time of takeover  of the loan of the complainant, the outstanding principal amount was Rs.68,45,422/- and so the 2^nd OP has collected Rs.1,36,908/- , the 2% of penalty on takeover  amount  along with GST of Rs.24643/-.”  Hence according to OPs there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service of their part.  For substantiating the above said contention, OP has submitted  Ext.B1 circular No.KB/CPC/KNR/service charge 2021-22.  On perusal of Ext.B1, it is clearly mentioned  that” as part of unification of service charges, the Board of Directors of the Bank  at the meeting held on 16/4/2021,decided to revise the commission and other charges as detailed in the attached sheet with effect from the date of this circular. Branches are instructed to realize the charges at the revised rates from now meticulously.  Any leakage of income by way of short realization  or non realization of charges on the services mentioned  in the list will be watched closely and remedial action  will be initiated by the Internal Control and Audit departments.  Further , branches are instructed to display a copy of the service  charges  list in their notice board for information to the  customers.  All branch managers are instructed  to act accordingly”.  In Ext.B1 it is also mentioned  about  collecting of GST and cess.

    In the column of  levying rate of charges  shows that if an existing  loan is  taken over by another bank, then a penalty of 2% on outstanding balance + GST to be levied.  As per clause  13 in the agreement the loanee has agreed to comply the rules and regulations.  Here the  complainant did not arise any dispute regarding the outstanding  balance  as Rs.6845422/- at the time of taking over by another bank.

   As per Ext.B1 we cannot find that Ext.B1 is not belonging to the  particular period and collecting  of Rs.1,36,908/- by the bank is illegal.

   Hence considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the  considered view that there is no deficiency  in service on the part of  OPs bank.

   In the result, complaint fails  and hence the same is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Exts:

A1- copy of agreement,

A2- letter dtd,7/12/16 issued by 1^st OP,

A3 &A4 - receipts dtd.9/9/21,10/2/2022

B1- Circular of Kerala Bank

PW1-Joaseph Scaria- complainant

DW1-Vinod.M.K-2^nd OP

Sd/                                                                  Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                         MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                       /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR