Kerala

Wayanad

CC/98/2013

Nabeesa, S/o Ahammed, Paramban Valliyalil House, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, South malabar Gramin Bank, Nadavayal. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2014

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CIVIL STATION ,KALPETTA
WAYANAD-673122
PHONE 04936-202755
 
Complaint Case No. CC/98/2013
 
1. Nabeesa, S/o Ahammed, Paramban Valliyalil House,
Nadavayal Post,
Wayanad
kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, South malabar Gramin Bank, Nadavayal.
Nadavayal
Wayanad
kerala.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-

The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,604/- being the excess amount of interest collected from the complainant by the opposite party and to pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and the cost of the proceedings.

 

2. The complainant's case in brief as follows:- The complainant is an Account Holder of opposite party bank and the Savings Bank Account number is 3436. The complainant availed a KCC scheme loan of Rupees one lakh on 31.01.2011. The repayment date is fixed on 01.02.2012. In order to get the benefits under KCC loan, the repayment of loan should be made on the fixed date itself. On 29.11.2011, the complainant along with her husband went to the bank and informed the Manager that there is financial stringency to them. Then the Manager made a suggestion that if they posses gold, that can be pledged and KCC loan can be closed and informed them that the gold loan will be considered as an agricultural loan. By accepting the suggestion, the complainant pledged gold ornaments and availed a loan of Rs.15,000/- on 30.01.2012 and renewed the KCC loan. On 30.01.2013, the complainant went to the opposite party bank to close the gold loan and to take back the gold, the opposite party bank Manager demanded 15% interest over the Gold loan instead of promised interest of 4% per annum. The opposite party bank Manager demanded Rs.17,475/- being the principal loan amount and 15% interest to the gold loan. The complainant could not repay the amount due to financial stringency and went back. On 19.04.2013, the opposite party had send a notice to the complainant demanding the complainant to take back the gold after remitting the above amount. On 07.05.2013, the complainant had paid Rs.18,202 in opposite party bank and took back the gold. Thereby, the opposite party collected excess interest from the complainant. Aggrieved by this, the complainant preferred this complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the complaint, Notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version the opposite party contented that the complainant had voluntarily repaid the KCC loan and gold loan bearing No. NPGL 23/12 without raising any objection. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the repayment of loan. The complaint is filed only after thought for having unlawful gain. So the petition is to be dismissed.

 

4. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 is marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of KCC loan pass book. Ext.A2 is the copy of Kisan Credit Card of complainant. Ext.A3 is the Gold loan ticket and Ext.A4 is the cash receipt. The opposite party is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 is marked. Ext.B1 is the gold loan account copy and Ext.B2 is the copy of pledge letter.

 

5. On analyzing the evidence of complainant and opposite party, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Relief and Cost.

 

6. Point No.1:- The case of the complainant is that he had availed KCC loan and in order to get benefits of KCC loan, the loan should be repaid within the specified time. So the opposite party bank's Manager gave a suggestion to the complainant to pledge some Gold and raise money and repay the KCC loan. The complainant states that the Manager offered 4% interest only for the gold loan and the gold loan will be included in agricultural gold loan scheme. So believing it, the complainant pledged gold and repaid the KCC loan. Later when the entire loan are closed by the complainant, the opposite party collected 15% interest for gold loan stating that it is NPGL loan. Thereby, the opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs.2,602/- as interest from the complainant. But on perusal of Ext.B1 and B2 loan documents produced by the opposite party, it is seen that the gold loan is sanctioned under the head Non priority gold loan ie NPGL and the rate of interest is 13.6% per annum subject to charges from time to time. More over, the gold loan is given for stationery shop. The complainant did not produce any documents to prove that the opposite party had offered gold loan in a rate of 4% interest except oral statement. But opposite party had produced documents to prove the rate of interest for gold loan. The opposite party produced a citation reported in 2002 SAR(Civil) 98 in which the Honorable Supreme Court of India by Honorable Mr. Justice Shivraj. V. Patil and Arijit Pasagat, the Honorable court ruled that the application of principle of natural justice cannot be read into express terms of contract, the charge of higher rate of interest is based on agreement between the parties. Hence in this case, there is clear agreement between the parties and the parties are bound to follow the conditions. So the opposite party had collected only lawful rate of interest from the complainant as per agreement. When an oral submission from one side and documents are there from other side to prove a particular fact, the documents will prevail. So the Forum found that there is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party in dealing with the matter. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favor of the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to get the cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

 

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No Order as to cost and compensation.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July 2014.

Date of Filing:06.06.2013.

 

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Nabeesa. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Ashok Kumar. Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank.

 

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Loan Pass Book.

A2. Copy of Kisan Credit Card.

A3. Gold Loan Ticket.

A4. Cash Receipt.

Exhibits for the opposite Party.

B1. Copy of Gold Loan Account.

B2. Copy of Pledge Letter.

 

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.