State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahesh Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd vs Smt.Shashi Rasbihari Agrawal on 22 March, 2013
1 FA/303/2011
Date of filing :16/06/2011
Date of order :22/03/2013
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 303 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 207 OF 2010
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PARBHANI
1. The Chief Executive Officer
Mahesh Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd
"Rajmani"Sardar Patel road,
Parbhani.
2. The Branch Manager
Mahesh Urban Co-op.Bank Ltd
"Rajmani"Sardar Patel road,
Parbhani Appellant
VERSUS
Smt.Shashi Rasbihari Agrawal
R/o.Bus Stand road,
Parbhani. Respondent.
CORAM : Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma Bora, Hon'ble Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.P.N.Kalani is present for the appellant.
Adv.S.N.Lavekar is present for the respondent O R A L O R D E R Per Mr.K.B.Gawail, Hon`ble Member.
1. This appeal is filed by the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the judgment and order dated 30/03/2011 passed by the Dist. Forum in CC. No. 207/2010 whereby the appellants are held liable for giving deficiency in service to the respondent/ original complainant.
2 FA/303/2011
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are that the respondent herein had obtained loan of Rs 50,000/- from the appellant bank on 19/11/2004 and agreement to that effect was executed. That as per the said agreement the loan amount was to be repaid within a period of 5 years i.e. upto 19/11/2009 by the monthly installments of Rs 1100/-. Accordingly for the first year the complainant had paid monthly installment of Rs 1400/- as against Rs 1100/- per month tobe paid as per agreement. That he had paid last installment on 30/11/2009 and thus repaid total loan amount with interest of 66,014/-. That, after the repayment of loan he had applied for " No dues certificate" ( NOC ). However the appellant bank did not issue the said certificate and instead by its notice dated 05/03/2010 directed the respondent /complainant to pay the balance amount of loan including interest of Rs 8121/- and thereafter the " No dues certificate" would be issued. That, the complainant replied the said notice denying no balance outstanding against him. However, since the said " No dues certificate" was not issued by the appellant bank, the complaint was filed before the Dist. Forum seeking direction to the appellant bank to issue him " No dues certificate" and to pay Rs 10,000/- towards mental agony, and Rs 15,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
3. The appellant bank appeared before the Dist. Forum and resisted the claim. It was contended that the loan of Rs 50,000/- was sanctioned to the respondent with interest at 15 % p.a. on 19/11/2004. That, the respondent in her application for sanction of loan had also accepted to repay the loan amount with interest at @ 15 % p.a. by monthly installment of Rs 1500/- . However, in the loan sanctioned letter dated 19/11/2004 monthly installments was inadvertently shown as Rs 1100/- instead of Rs 1200/- per month. It 3 FA/303/2011 was therefore contended that the balance amount Rs 8121/- was outstanding against the respondent and hence the question of issuing " No dues certificate" does not arise. Thus it was contended that by not issuing " No dues certificate" there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank and the complaint being false and baseless be dismissed.
4. The Dist. Forum below on the basis of record and hearing of the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant bank to issue " No dues certificate" after accepting the difference amount by deducting total amount repaid by the respondent from Rs 72,000/-. In addition it was also directed to pay to the complainant Rs 2000/- as mental agony and Rs 1000/- towards cost of the complaint.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order the present appeal is filed in this Commission. The appellant has also filed the separate application for condonation of delay of 39 days. This application was heard on 10/10/2012 and after having satisfied about the explanation the said delay was condoned. The appeal was finally heard on 28/02/2013. Adv. P.N.Kalani was present for the appellant. Adv.S.N.Lavekar was present for the respondent. We have heard both the counsels at length and appeal was reserved for judgment and order.
6. The learned counsel Shri. Kalani submitted that the Dist. Forum has made its observation about non-issue of " No dues certificate" (NOC) in favor of the appellant bank. However, while passing the operative order the Forum has wrongly directed the appellant bank for repayment of compensation towards mental agony 4 FA/303/2011 and cost. He also contended that the amount of Rs 8121/- is including of interest and not only the interest of Rs 7000/- and the amount paid by the respondent. He therefore requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order.
7. On the other hand Adv. Shri.S.N.Lavekar present for the respondent and submitted that as per loan sanction letter, amount of monthly installment was Rs 1100/- and the duration of repayment was of 5 years i.e. 60 months. Accordingly the respondent had paid the entire value of loan i.e. Rs 66,014/- and hence there was no arrears of Rs 8121/- as claimed by the appellant. He therefore requested to dismiss the appeal.
8. We have carefully gone through the papers and also considered the oral submission put forth by both the counsels. There is no dispute about loan of Rs 50,000/-. The dispute is only about the amount of monthly installment. Although there is no documentary evidence to show that the monthly installment of loan @ Rs 1200/- as contended by the appellant, the said contention is supported by the available record especially the loan application submitted by the complainant i.e. respondent herein.
9. From the perusal of the loan application dated 11/11/2004 submitted by the respondent it is revealed that the amount of loan applied is shown as Rs 50,000/- and the total installments of repayment of loan are shown as 48 which means that the respondent had agreed to pay the total value of loan at Rs 72,000/- ( Rs 1500 x 48 ) as against the loan of Rs 50,000/-. The appellant bank has contended that the monthly installments was Rs 1200/- and not Rs 1100/- and the total installments by which the loan was tobe repaid 5 FA/303/2011 was 60. Thus by taking the monthly installments as Rs 1200/- and the total as 60 the total value of loan works out to Rs 72,000/-. Therefore as rightly observed by the Dist. Forum, amount of monthly loan installments must have been Rs 1200/- and not Rs 1100/- as contended by the respondent. In our view the respondent was to pay total value of loan of Rs 72,000/- as against the loan repayment. However, he has paid only Rs 66,000/- and hence there is outstanding amount of Rs 6000/- against him. The appellant bank has demanded the balance amount at Rs 8121/- . That the amount of Rs 2121/- which is over and above Rs 6000/- appears tobe the amount of interest, delay charges etc. The Dist. Forum without going in to these aspects has directed the appellant bank to receive only Rs 6000/- which is the difference of Rs 72,000/- and the amount paid by the respondent i.e. Rs 66,000/-, does not appear tobe proper and acceptable.
10. That the agreement is executed in between the appellant bank and respondent. Both the parties are therefore bound by the terms of agreement. If there is a delay in the payment of installments the financer is empowered to charge the interest on delay payment. Therefore it is beyond jurisdiction of the Forum to interfere with the agreement. It is further to be noted that the Forum below while passing the impugned order has accepted the contention of the appellant bank regarding loan installments of Rs 1200/- and the further contention that there was an outstanding amount from the respondent and hence " No dues certificate" was not issued. Therefore appellant bank can not be made liable to pay compensation towards mental agony and cost of the complaint. 6 FA/303/2011
11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we find that the order passed by the Dist. Forum below is totally improper and un law ful. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by theDist. Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. The complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to costs.
5. Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali Mrs.Uma Bora B.A.Shaikh Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Patil A.H. Steno H.G.