SURESH KUMAR REDHU vs STATE BANK OF PATIALA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 29. 5. 2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant against the respondent-opposite party has been dismissed.

THE facts as set out in the complaint in nutshell are that the complainant had availed house loan facility of Rs. 3 lacs from the opposite party on 29. 3. 2003. He was allotted account No. 10159n025160. Thereafter, the complainant shifted the loan to another Bank, as the opposite party did not fulfil the requirements for further loan. Accordingly, he paid the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,99,940 vide draft No. 344581 on 22. 11. 2003. In addition, he deposited Rs. 2,600 in cash on 18. 11. 2003 with the opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party had charged excess rate of interest @ 2% over and above the rate of interest stipulated in the original loan agreement for the entire period of loan and that amount comes to Rs. 6,000. Accordingly, he called upon the opposite party to refund the above stated amount but without any response from it. Forced by these circumstances the complainant filed the present complaint and sought directions to refund the amount along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit which is 25. 11. 2003. In addition the complainant claimed Rs. 20,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that the complainant had showed his inability to fulfil the requirements of further loan as per conditions of the opposite party and as such allegations made by the complainant in this regard are unfounded. At the same time it admitted that the complainant had returned the remaining amount of loan as stated in the complaint. It further justified the interest charged @ 2% as prepayment charges over the agreed rate of interest in terms of Clause 4 (i) of the Arrangement letter which was duly signed by the complainant. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum found no substance in the stand of the complainant and dismissed the complaint as per order dated 29. 5. 2006. It is against the said order the present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

While assailing the order dated 29. 5. 2006 of the District Forum learned Counsel representing the appellant-complainant submitted that the District Forum failed to take into account that at the time when agreement was executed by the complainant, the opposite party was in dominate position and for that reason condition of charging 2% rate of interest being nullity, was not binding on the complainant and for that reason the impugned order deserved to be set aside. In support of the stand taken he has placed reliance on the observations made in case of Punjab National Bank v. Chaman Kumari and Anr. , II (2005) CPJ 737=2005 (3) Con. LT 248, wherein the opposite party which is Punjab National Bank had demanded 2% pre-payment charges as per circular and it was held by the State Commission of Delhi that such a demand amounts to unfair trade practice and for that reason this demand was set aside. Learned Counsel representing the opposite party while refuting the stand of the complainant contended that the above stated judgment rendered no assistance to the complainant as in this case the complainant had specifically agreed to pay pre-payment charges as mentioned in Clause 4 (i) of the Arrangement Letter. There is considerable merit in the stand taken from the side of the opposite party. Clause 4 (i) of the Arrangement Letter clearly mentions that, "a pre-payment charge of 2% of the amount prepaid will be levied when the loan is preclosed for reasons of takeover by any other bank (s)/financial institution (s)". Therefore, the opposite party had charged the amount of Rs. 6,000 from the complainant in terms of the above stated clause. This clause has been inserted because it has been contended from the side of the opposite party that every bank has to regulate its functioning and the complainant with open eyes had agreed to the terms stated therein and for that reason he is duty bound to pay the charges so claimed. Under the circumstances of the case, the District Forum was fully justified in dismissing the complaint.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed.