Karnataka

Kolar

CC/102/2016

Sri.P.Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 29/11/2016

Date of Order: 15/05/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 15^TH DAY OF MAY 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 102 OF 2016

Sri. P. Ramesh Kumar,

S/o. V.Perumal,

Aged About 47 Years,

# B191, 3^rd Cross, 5^th Main,

Bharath Nagar, BEML Nagar,

KGF-563 115.                                                     ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. S.C.Venkatachalapathi, Advocate)

- V/s -

The Manager,

M/s. The Pragathi Krishna Gramin

Bank, Sir M.V. Nagar Branch,

BEML Nagar, KGF-563 115.                     …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. N.G. Vasudev Moorthy, Advocate)

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted the complaint on hand Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought issuance of directions to OP to pay a sum of Rs.13,214/- which was deducted by OP as inspection charges with 18% interest from the date of deductions.  And also sought compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards, while signing loan agreement he was not in knowledge about inspection charges and what are all hidden charges, without his knowledge the Bank authorities has taken his signatures in several papers.  And also sought a sum of Rs.10,000/- cost for repudiation of his claim.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, on February-2011 he had availed a car loan of Rs.2,80,000/- from OP vide account No.87615215189111.  And he had repaid EMI regularly for a period of 04 years, due to his financial problems he was unable to pay EMI for the 5^th year of loan term, during which in September-2016 the Bank authorities first time visited his home for recovery of car loan.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, he had availed personal loan from Canara Bank, Dasarahosahalli Branch and settled the car loan outstanding amount of Rs.2,56,310/- in OP branch on 25.10.2016.  To his surprise there was deduction of Rs.13,214/- as inspection charges in different dates with uneven rates.  Even though bank never questioned regarding non-payment of EMI and also deducted a sum of Rs.802/- after closing of the loan in March-2016.

 

(c)    Further it is contended that, the OP authorities have never visited for any sort of inspection of the car and blindly deducted inspection charges.  When he questioned in this regard OP authorities repudiated his claim by saying according to RBI rules whatever charged is correct.  So contending, the complainant has come up with the complaint on hand to seek the above set-out reliefs.

 

(d)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Bank loan statement

(ii)LPG inspection report.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum OP has put in its appearance through its said learned counsel and has submitted written version.

 

(a)    By denying the allegations of complainant it is specifically contends that, the OP is entitled to claim the inspection charges, miscellaneous charges, service charges as per the guidelines of RBI, and is entitled for inspection charge half yearly of Rs.600/- + tax, it amounts to Rs.690/- per inspection.

 

(b)    It contends that, up to March-2012, the complainant was regularly paid EMI and later on he was not regular in paying of EMI and from January-2015 to October-2016 he was fully defaulted in paying of EMI.

 

(c)    Thus, on 31.03.2012 OP is entitled to 03 visits, and debited only two visits of Rs.1,324/- and on 17.05.2012 for 03 visits and earlier 04 visits charges of Rs.2,757/- subsequently on 24.09.2012, 31.10.2012, 13.06.2013, 23.09.2013 visits charge of Rs.1,349/- from 24.03.2014 for single visit of Rs.675/-.

 

(d)    It is contended that, total period of loan term is of 05 years and from the date of loan the closer of loan OP have visited in all 19 times, so deducted Rs.13,214/- according to RBI guidelines.  So prayed for dismissal of the complaint costs has been sought. 

 

(e)    The learned counsel appearing for OP has submitted Memo with below mentioned documents:-

(i)       Document vide Circular No.29/2013-2014, dated: 28.09.2013.

 

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence and on behalf of OP Sri.A.Padmanabha, Branch Manager, has put in his affidavit evidence and the learned counsel appearing for both parties have submitted their written arguments.

 

05.   Heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both parties.

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for consideration in the above case are:-

(A)  Whether the complainant was defaulter in paying EMI towards car loan vide account No. 87615215189111?

 

(B) Whether the OP could be held as guilty of deficiency in service, in deduction of inspection charges?

 

(C) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled for?

 

(D)  What order?

 

07.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A):   In the Affirmative

 

POINT (B):   In the Negative

 

POINT (C):   Does not survive for consideration.

 

POINT (D):   As per final order for

                            the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A):-

 

08.   The complainant contends that, he had repaid EMI towards the said car loan regularly upto 04 years of loan term and in 5^th year he was not paid due to his financial problems.  Contrary to this the OP specifically contends that, the complainant was defaulter in paying EMI.

 

09.   The Bank statement of account bearing No. 87615215189111 submitted by complainant clearly shows that, he was defaulter in paying of EMIs.

 

10.   As per the Bank statement, the complainant was repaid EMIs regularly up to March-2012.  Later on he was not paid every month regularly.  Hence we have no hesitation to hold that, the present complainant was defaulter in paying EMIs towards said car loan. 

 

POINT (B) & (C):-

 

11.   To avoid repetition in reasoning and as these points do deserve common course of discussion the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

12.   Undoubtedly the complainant was defaulter in paying EMIs of the said car loan as per the Bank statement as discussed above.  As per the document submitted by OP, Circular No.29/2013-2014, dated: 28.09.2013 subject to service charges, inspection charges and other charges on loans and advances – with effect from 01.10.2013, the OP-Bank is entitled for inspection charges and other charges on loans.

 

13.   Since the complainant was defaulter in paying EMIs, the OP-Bank was deducted the inspection charges and other charges as per the Circular.

 

14.   And with regard to another contention of complainant as, OP officials have never visited for inspection and produced any receipt for such visit, as others will issue receipt for inspection by quoting example of LPG gas inspection.  In our view it will not give binding on it because the complainant has not come up with any documentary evidence to prove that, for every visit of inspection, issuance of receipt is mandatory.  Hence we are of the definite opinion that, since the complainant was not regular in paying the installments of his car loan, the OP-Bank has deducted the inspection and other charges as per the guidelines of RBI.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

 

POINT (D):-

15.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

15.05.2017:-

COMPLAINANT/BY SRI.

OPPOSITE PARTY/BY SRI.

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands dismissed with no costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 15^th DAY OF MAY 2017)

 

 

 

         MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT