K.Kerala Varma vs State Bank of Travancore Vyttila Branch

THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 15th of September, 2009 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (the State Commission for short), vide which the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (the District Forum for short) on the 27th of February, 2009 has been set aside resulting in the dismissal of complaint of the petitioner.

THE complaint set out by the petitioner before the District Forum was that he had availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 2nd of July, 2003 from the respondent/opposite party/Bank, repayment of which was to be done in certain EMIs. While the complainant claims that he had offered to render post dated cheques towards the payment of the EMIs, it was the respondent/opposite party/Bank who had dissuaded him from doing so stating that the EMIs can be deducted from the complainants SB account which was maintained in their branch. Subsequently, the complainant in order to reduce his interest burden refunded an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- on 16th of July, 2003 leaving an outstanding balance of Rs.90,000/- only. He, therefore, requested the Bank to reschedule the EMIs and believed in good faith that the Bank would deduct the revised EMIs from his SB account. It was only after he retired from service and wanted to consolidate his assets and liabilities that he enquired about the status of his loan account and was surprised to find that the Bank had not deducted the EMIs and on the contrary has levied interest charges on the remaining loan amount to the extent of Rs.64,714/-. Under the circumstances, he paid a sum of Rs.1,54,714/- under protest and closed the loan account on the 4th of July, 2007. An application thereafter was made to the respondent/Bank to waive the overdue interest charged on compound rate, which, however, was declined. Approach to the Banking Ombudsman also did not find favour and, therefore, the complainant knocked the doors of the District Forum, who vide its order dated 27th of February, 2009 referred to earlier partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/Bank to levy only simple interest @ 13.5% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.90,000/- from 16th of July, 2003 to 4th of July, 2007 and refund the excess amount deposited. THE District Forum also awarded a compensation of Rs.2000/- in addition to a cost of Rs.1000/-. THE respondent/Bank challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission, who, as already stated above, allowed the appeal of the respondent/Bank and dismissed the complaint. We have heard the petitioner/complainant, who has appeared in person and pleaded his case at length before us, and the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party/Bank.

Undisputed facts are that the respondent/Bank had sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner/complainant on 2nd of July, 2003. It is also admitted by the Bank that a lump sum amount of Rs.2,10,000/- had been repaid by the complainant on 16th of July, 2003 leaving a balance of only Rs.90,000/- to be repaid in EMIs. While the petitioner/complainant contends that the revised EMIs as per remaining loan amount of Rs.90,000/- were to be deducted from his SB account, the contention of the respondent/opposite party/Bank is that there was no such instruction or direction by the complainant to deduct the EMIs from his SB account. The State Commission in its order has precisely taken this view and has held that there was no instruction from the account-holder i.e. the petitioner/complainant to deduct the installments from his SB account. In financial/banking transactions it would not be treated as sufficient to say that someone in the Bank had orally agreed to deduct the EMIs from the SB account and the petitioner being a well educated person (Professor of a college) ought to have followed any such assurance by rendering instructions in writing.

WE further notice that while the major part of the loan was repaid on 16th of July, 2003, the complainant did not bother to ascertain the status of his loan account for a continuous period of four years thereafter. If he really believed that the Bank would be deducting the EMIs from his SB account, he ought to have been aware of it as it is not his case that he did not operate the SB account for the prolonged period of four years. That part, the contention that the bank had not given him any notice with regard to the default of EMIs would not mitigate his liability, which has been satisfactorily explained by the State Commission in its order. Under the circumstances, we do not find anything either wrong or irregular in the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition being devoid of any merit, accordingly, is dismissed with no order as to cost.