| First Appeal No. A/574/2017 | | ( Date of Filing : 28 Feb 2017 ) | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/01/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/2/2017 of District Davangere) |
| | | | 1. Manjunatha S.N. | | S/o late S.Nanjappa, aged about 49 years, partners: Sri Guru Enterprises, R/o No.2856, 4th Main, MCC B Block, Davanagere-577 004. | | 2. K.N. Shankar | | S/o late K.Nanjundappa, aged about 54 years, Partners, Sri Guru Enterprises, R/o No.1760/2, 4th Min, 3rd Cross, Vinobhanagar, Davanagere-577006. | | 3. Sunitha | | W/o K.N.Shankar aged about 42 years, Partners, Sri Guru Enterprises, R/o No.1760/2, 4th Min, 3rd Cross, Vinobhanagar, Davanagere-577006. | | 4. Jayaprabha | | W/o S.N. Manjunatha, aged about 45 years, partners: Sri Guru Enterprises, R/o No.2856, 4th Main, MCC B Block, Davanagere-577 004. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. The Manager, Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., | | No.323-5K & 323-5L, Old Hospital Road, Near Chamaraja pete Circle, Davanagere-570 001 |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | A-574/2017 23-8-2024 O R D E R BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Heard from the appellant. Respondent not present. 2. The learned advocate for appellant submits that, he had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service for levying a pre-closure charges to tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. In fact, the agreement issued by the respondent bank dated 13-7-2015 does not disclose the pre-closure charges, when at the time of pre-closing; they have levied 3% against to the agreement. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, but the District Commission after hearing of at the stage of admission itself had dismissed holding this complainant is not a consumer within a purview of the CP Act. In fact, the transaction took place between the complainant and this respondent bank is a consumer transaction, they challenged the imposition of pre-closure charges at the time of closing the loan prematurely, the matter requires to be discussed through trial, but instead of that, the District Commission dismissed the complainant after hearing on admission. The subject matter is definitely consumer dispute, hence prays to remand back the matter for proper adjudication. 3. Perused the certified copy of the order and other documents produced, when the complainant alleges a pre-closure charge is not as per the agreement entered between them. Definitely a dispute falls within the definition of consumer disputes itself. Though the loan was raised through over draft, the subject matter requires to be an adjudicated when the alleges pre-closure charge was against to the agreement. The District Commission made an error in dismissing the complaint at threshold itself. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. Hence, the matter requires for retrial, accordingly the complaint is restored and the District Commission is directed to restore the complaint No.02/2017 and issue notice to both parties and adjudicate the matter on merits expeditiously after accepting the evidences from both sides. Member Judicial Member | |
