CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1998) 01 NCDRC CK 0048

T.K.SOUNDARARAJAN vs SECRETARY, CHENGALPATTU CO-OP. URBAN BANK

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 8 January 1998 · Citation: 1999 1 CPC 540 : 1999 1 CPJ 524

HON’BLE JUDGES
E.J.Bellie , Angel Arulraj J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 404 words
1.

THIS appeal is by the complainant who has lost his case in the District Forum. A very small issue is involved in this matter. The complainant has received a loan of Rs. 33,000/- from the 1st opposite party Chengalpattu Co-op. Urban Bank, as an Associate Member, by pledging his jewels. Now he has paid the loan and redeemed his jewels. His only grievance is that the Bank has collected from him an amount of Rs. 36/- as service charges whereas actually they have not rendered any service to him. Therefore the said service charges collected is absolutely illegal and improper and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. On these allegations, he has filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the said amount and also pay compensation and further direction to them not to hereafter collect such charges.

2.

THE opposite parties in their written version contended that as per the bye-law the service charges were collected and the said act was not an improper or illegal one and as such there was no deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, held that the bye-law of the Society enables the opposite party to collect the service charges and therefore there is no merit in the complaint. Thus holding, it dismissed the complaint.

Now in the appeal, we find there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to interfere with the said finding of the District Forum and the order passed by it. Bye-law No. 29(2) of the Chengalpattu Co-operative Urban Bank Limited reads thus : "Service charges may be charged at 50 paise for every hundred rupees or part thereof the loan, subject to a minimum of Rs. 1/- and maximum of Rs. 50/- for each loan, The service charges are inclusive of appraiser fees, insurance and all other charges. Such fee shall not on any account be refunded."

In view of this Bye-law, the collection of a sum of Rs. 36/- as service charges by the opposite parties cannot be said to be illegal or improper. Thus there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Rightly therefore the complaint was dismissed. Thus we find no merit in the appeal.

3.

HENCE the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.