State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Managar,Indian Overseas ... vs M.Murugan,Sivagangai. on 7 November, 2023
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: - THIRU.S. KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
(Against the order made in C.C.No.03/2015, dated 24.12.2020 on the file of the District
Commission, Sivagangai.)
F.A.No.48/2022
TUESDAY, THE 07th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023.
1. The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Opp. Sivaganga Bus Stand,
Thondi Road, Sivagangai District.
2. The Regional Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Door No.26-7, College Road,
Subramaniapuram,
Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
Appellants/1,2 Opposite parties.
-Vs-
M.Murugan,
S/o.Muthsonai,
Arasanur Village,
Thirumanjacholai Post,
Sivagangai Taluk & District.
Respondent/Complainant.
Counsel for Appellants/1,2 Opposite parties : Mr.T.Senthilkumar, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.G.Kaleeswaran, Advocate.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Sivagangai made in C.C.No.03/2015, dated 24.12.2020 the opposite
party preferred this appeal. This appeal coming before me for final hearing on
2
19.10.2023 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the
following:
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (OPEN COURT).
1. This appeal has been filed under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Replaced with section 41 r/w section 47(1)
(a) (iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the award passed by the District Commission, Sivagangai in C.C.No.03/2015, dated 24.12.2021.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they had ranked in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sivagangai.
3. The Facts:
The complainant availed agricultural-cum Jewel loan,on 02.04.2013 and borrowed Rs.2,00,000/-. On 15.10.2014 he approached the bank to redeem his jewel. The bank official told to pay Rs.2,24,000/- but on 16.10.2014 he was directed to pay Rs.2,40,000/- towards the loan amount. Hence he applied under RTI Act to get certain information. But they were not given by the bank. The bank without following rules imposed heavy interest so thereby they committed deficiency in service and filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to fix proper interest for the loan and to receive the principal and interest amount and to deliver the jewels and further requested to direct the bank officials to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and further direct the bank not to levy interest after 16.10.2014.3
4. The opposite party filed the written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant in fact received and availed four loans in A/c.No.008403211200146 dated 19.01.2012 for Rs.95000/-, A/c.No.008403211200409 dated 07.02.2012 for Rs.10000/-, A/c.No.008403211200095 dated17.05.2012 for Rs.31651/-, A/c.No.008403211300906 dated 02.04.2012 for Rs.200000/-.
They have collected the interest only as per the RBI direction. They further contended that concession to interest will be given only if the loan amount did not exceed Rs.3,00,000/-. In this case the complainant borrowed morethan three lakhs. Apart from that, the complainant did not repay the loan within one year, hence the above concession offered by the RBI will not be applicable to the complainant. So, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The District Commission received proof affidavit of both sides and marked Ex.A1 to A15 and Ex.B1. The District Commission finally allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and to levy 7% interest for Rs.200000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant/opposite party bank preferred the appeal on the following
7. Grounds:
That the order of the District Commission is erroneous and wrong appreciation of facts. The District Commission failed to note the above RBI circular 4 applicable only for the loan upto Rs.3,00,000/-. The agriculture who availed morethan three lakhs not entitled for the above said 7% interest, furthermore the complainant though discharge the above three loan failed to discharge the last loan of Rs.200000/- hence the bank is entitled to levy morethan 7% interest and entitled to levy penal interest. Hence prayed to allow the appeal.
8. In this case both sides were absent and both sides did not file written argument. This commission on perusal of the records, decided to pass an order on merits.
9. It is an admitted fact and also proved from Ex.B1 that the complainant availed four loans in the year 2012 and the total amount came to morethan Rs.300000/- it is the case of the complainant that he borrowed a jewel loan for agriculture purpose and the bank charged extra interest amount than agreed. It is not his specific case that as per the RBI circular he is entitled only to 7% interest and not any excess interest. This commission inclined to mention that there is no specific interest rate claimed by the complainant in his complaint as well as the complainant did not specifically say anything about the RBI circular. But the opposite party clearly mentioned that as per the four loans availed by the complainant, the total loan amount exceeded Rs.300000/-. So for the three Lakhs they charged only 7% interest and for the remaining amount of Rs.47750/- they have charged 13.75% interest. Furthermore it is the contention of the bank that the above RBI circular and concessional rate of interest applicable to loans which have to be repaid within a year. But in this case the loan has not been paid within a year and hence the concession not applicable to the complainant. 5
10. Now the points for consideration is,
(i).Whether the bank charging of interest amounted to deficiency in service?
11. Point: As already stated though it was not the contention of the complainant specifically that he is entitled only to 7% interest, the District commission as well as opposite party relied upon a circular issued by the RBI. The above circular has been dealt by the District commission in detail. The terms of the circular is undisputable. As per the circular the RBI directs banks to give a concession of 2% interest for a loan borrowed by agricultural . The above circular further stipulated the loan limit as Rs.300000/-, and the loan amount has to be repaid within one year to get such concession. In this case as per Ex.B1 the previous loans have been paid by the complainant and the loans have been closed. But at the relevanttime the complainant borrowed morethan Rs.3,00,000/- i.e Rs.3,47,750/-. So it is the contention and as per the calculation sheet of the bank they charged Rs.1,52,250/- at 7% interest and they calculated for Rs.47750/- at 13.75% interest. The above calculation and factum of claiming at 13.75% interest was not disputed by the complainant. To be more specific it is not the case of the complainant that the above calculation of interest at 13.75%. When there is no dispute with regard to the calculation sheet filed separately in Ex.B1,then this commission found the bank acted as per the direction of the RBI. The District Commission wrongly found that the argument of the opposite parties are contradictory in nature. On the otherhand there is no contradictory statements by the bank. As per their case by getting four loans the complainant exceeded the limit of Rs.3,00,000/- . The bank correctly calculated 13.75% interest for the excess amount alone. Furthermore the disputed 6 loan of Rs.200000/- were not paid within one year. So the calculation and levying excess interest the 7% is not amounted to deficiency in service. This commission further pointed out that the complaint he was charged excess interest than agreed by the both side. But as per the RBI the bank can fix the excess interest and the concessional interest is not applicable to the complainant. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank in claiming the loan amount. The complainant without even paying the admitted amount cannot prefer the complaint and Consumer Forum cannot decide the disputed questions in accounts. So in every respect the finding and award of the District Commission is liable to be setaside and the complaint is also liable to be dismissed. So, the appeal is allowed without costs.
12. In the result, The Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sivagangai made in C.C.No.03/2015, dated 24.12.2020 and the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
The Registry is directed to refund the mandatory deposit to the appellants/1,2 opposite parties with accrued interest thereon duly discharged in favour of the appellants/1,2 opposite party.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by him corrected and pronounced by me on this the 07th day of November 2023.
-Sd/-xxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
78 9