KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.407/12
JUDGMENT DATED:24.09.2013
PRESENT :
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
Indus Ind Bank,
2401, General Thimmayya Road,
Contonment, Pune-411 001, : APPELLANT
Having its Branch Office at
Varinjam Towers, Kollam.
Rep. by its Authorised Representative-
Sri.Partheesh.S, Executive(Legal)
(By Adv: Sri.Rajesh.K)
Vs.
Yohannankutty,
Padinjattathil Puthenveedu, : RESPONDENT
Pooyappally, Kottarakkara, Kollam.
(By Adv: Sri. S.Sunil Narayan)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 in CC.105/08 on the file of CDRF, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum dated, January 31, 2012 directing the appellants to refund Rs.27,331/- to the complainant being the excess amount collected by the appellant bank from the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-
Complainant availed a loan of Rs.7.43,000/- from the appellant bank for purchasing the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-02/V-2470 on April 20, 2005. The agreement was to repay Rs.9,18,908/- within 4 years with expiry on February 20, 2009. The monthly instalment was Rs.18,500/-. On Janyary 10, 2008 complainant intended to close the loan by paying the outstanding amount of Rs.2,49,908/-. But opposite party bank illegally collected Rs.2,92,000/- which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore the complainant claimed refund of Rs.27,331/- being the excess amount received by the opposite parties with compensation and costs.
3. First opposite party is M/s Indus Ind Bank represented by its Branch Manager, Kollam and 2 and 3 opposite parties are the head office of the bank at Pune and Chennai respectively. They in their version contended thus:- The complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant closed the loan by paying Rs.2,92,000/- on January 10, 2008. Therefore he is now estopped from challenging the terms of the agreement. As per the terms of the loan agreement complainant has to pay foreclosure charge of 3% if he closes the loan prior to the date of termination. That being so the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. Fourth opposite party is Reserve Bank of India represented by its Chief Manager. Fourth opposite party filed a version stating that 4th opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings.
5. PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of the complainant. For the opposite party Ext.D1 was marked before the Forum.
6. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that OP1 to 3 collected an excess amount of Rs.27,331/- from the complainant and directed Opposite parties 1 to 3 to refund the said amount. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have challenged the said order of the Forum in this appeal.
7. Both the counsels were heard.
8. The counsel for the appellant argued that there was no excess payment made by the complainant and that when a customer closes the loan before the date of expiry he has to pay 3% foreclosure charges as per the terms of the agreement. The counsel for the complainant on the other hand supported the order of the Forum.
9. The following points arise for consideration:-
1. Whether the appellant bank collected any excess amount from the complainant?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
It is the admitted case that complainant availed a loan of Rs.7,43,000/- on April 20,2005 from the appellant bank, that agreement was to repay within 4 years with expiry date on February 20, 2008, that the total amount to be repaid is Rs.9,10,908/- at the rate of Rs.18,500/- per month. It is not disputed and is proved by Ext.P1 receipt that complainant closed the loan on January 10, 2008 by paying Rs.2,92,000/-.
10. The case of the complainant is that as per Ext.P3 statement of account the amount due as on 10.1.2008 was Rs.2,49,908/- but for closing the loan the opposite parties collected Rs.2,92,000/-, an excess amount of Rs.27,331/- which they are bound to refund. The opposite parties, bank contended that on premature closing of loan complainant has to pay 3% foreclosure charges and that therefore there would be no excess payment on the part of the complainant. Ext.P3 statement of account of the opposite party bank shows that amount due as on 10.1.2008 is Rs.2,49,908/- only. In Ext.P1 copy of the loan agreement it is provided that for pre-closure of the loan the customer has to pay 3% foreclosure charges. But no evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite parties to show that the said term of agreement was explained to the complainant at the time of execution of Ext.D1. Further Ext.D1 is a printed form wherein the rate of foreclosure charge appears to be subsequently written. That being so, the Forum is perfectly justified in holding that there was unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant bank. The complainant has to pay only Rs.2,49,908/- but the opposite parties collected Rs.2,92,000/-. The excess amount of Rs.27,331/- which they are bound to refund. The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.
11. The Forum ordered to refund Rs.27,331/- to the complainant and awarded costs of Rs.1000/-. We find no ground to interfere with the finding of the Forum.
In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT
V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
VL.
