Syndicate Bank V/S Vinayak H. Nayak - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/763

Vinayak H. Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syndicate Bank - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/763

Vinayak H. Nayak						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Syndicate Bank						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 31.03.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 31st AUGUST 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.763/2009 COMPLAINANTS 1. Sri. Vinayak H.Nayak, S/o Sri. Honnappa B.Nayak, Aged about 46 years. 2. Smt. Kumudakshi, W/o Sri. Vinayak H.Nayak, Aged about 41 years. Both are residents of Aisiri, No.S2, 2nd Floor, Celestial Prime, No.4, Jaladarshini Layout, 4th Cross, M.S.Ramaih Nagar, Bangalore 560 054. Advocate: Sri N.Mohanadasa V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Syndicate Bank, No.64 and 215, Margosa Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003. Rep: by its Chief Manager. Advocate: Sri S.Krishnaswamy O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.28,360/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: 3. Complainant availed the housing loan of Rs.12,62,000/- from OP on 19.08.2005 by mortgaging his flat agreeing to repay the same with 8% interest in 18 years in an EMI of Rs.11,050/-. Complainant was prompt and regular in payment of the said installments in time. With all that OP imposed commission and belated charges which is illegal and arbitrary. Complainant actually closed the said loan account by making outstanding amount in due that too well within the period of installments as full and final settlement but still OP has collected the pre-closure charges which is unjust and improper. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to reverse the commission, penal interest and debit of the amount from his savings account went in futile. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he caused the legal notice on 29.07.2008 again there was no response. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complaint is barred by time. OP collected the charges as per the RBI rules, regulations and guidelines. They are entitled to collect the pre-closure charges as per the loan documents executed by the complainant. No wrong is committed by the OP. The other allegations are false and frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are not liable to pay the amount claimed. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No.1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- Negative. Point No.2:- Negative. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.12,62,000/- by a mortgaging their property agreeing to repay same with 8% floating interest in 18 years in an EMI of Rs.11,050/-. According to the complainant he was prompt in payment all the EMI. In all he paid Rs.9,06,973/- and later on he pre-closured account by paying the remaining amount in due on 03.09.2007 towards full and final settlement. OP accepted the same and issued NOC, but still debited Rs.9,180/- from his SB account towards the interest which is unjust and improper. 9. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions for the loan agreement. The allegation of the complainant that OP has no right to collect the commission is wrong RBI rules permits OP to collect such commission. It is further contended that complainant was not regularly making payment of EMI. Hence as per the loan agreement OP has got a right to impose penal interest on delayed payment. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. 10. Of course OP admits as the complainant pre-closed his account and made payment of outstanding dues they issued the NOC, but according to OP they are entitled to collect the interest from 01.04.2007 to 03.09.2007. OP calculated the said interest and collected it. As already observed by us complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. In our view OP has acted in pursuance of the said terms and conditions. 11. The other allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless. On the plain reading of the complaint allegations they did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency in service. Rather it discloses the case relating to settlement of account and for the balance in due, on the basis of the accounts. In our view the complainant did not follow within the ambit of Section 2(1)(c)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act. If the complainant is so advised he can file a proper civil suit to redress his remedy if at all OP is in due of certain amount. With these observations we find it is not a fit case wherein complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. Complainant appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer pint Nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of August 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT s.n.m.

COMPLAINT FILED: 31.03.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 31st AUGUST 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.763/2009 COMPLAINANTS 1. Sri. Vinayak H.Nayak, S/o Sri. Honnappa B.Nayak, Aged about 46 years. 2. Smt. Kumudakshi, W/o Sri. Vinayak H.Nayak, Aged about 41 years. Both are residents of Aisiri, No.S2, 2nd Floor, Celestial Prime, No.4, Jaladarshini Layout, 4th Cross, M.S.Ramaih Nagar, Bangalore 560 054. Advocate: Sri N.Mohanadasa V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Syndicate Bank, No.64 and 215, Margosa Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003. Rep: by its Chief Manager. Advocate: Sri S.Krishnaswamy O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.28,360/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: 3. Complainant availed the housing loan of Rs.12,62,000/- from OP on 19.08.2005 by mortgaging his flat agreeing to repay the same with 8% interest in 18 years in an EMI of Rs.11,050/-. Complainant was prompt and regular in payment of the said installments in time. With all that OP imposed commission and belated charges which is illegal and arbitrary. Complainant actually closed the said loan account by making outstanding amount in due that too well within the period of installments as full and final settlement but still OP has collected the pre-closure charges which is unjust and improper. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to reverse the commission, penal interest and debit of the amount from his savings account went in futile. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he caused the legal notice on 29.07.2008 again there was no response. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complaint is barred by time. OP collected the charges as per the RBI rules, regulations and guidelines. They are entitled to collect the pre-closure charges as per the loan documents executed by the complainant. No wrong is committed by the OP. The other allegations are false and frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are not liable to pay the amount claimed. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No.1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- Negative. Point No.2:- Negative. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.12,62,000/- by a mortgaging their property agreeing to repay same with 8% floating interest in 18 years in an EMI of Rs.11,050/-. According to the complainant he was prompt in payment all the EMI. In all he paid Rs.9,06,973/- and later on he pre-closured account by paying the remaining amount in due on 03.09.2007 towards full and final settlement. OP accepted the same and issued NOC, but still debited Rs.9,180/- from his SB account towards the interest which is unjust and improper. 9. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions for the loan agreement. The allegation of the complainant that OP has no right to collect the commission is wrong RBI rules permits OP to collect such commission. It is further contended that complainant was not regularly making payment of EMI. Hence as per the loan agreement OP has got a right to impose penal interest on delayed payment. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. 10. Of course OP admits as the complainant pre-closed his account and made payment of outstanding dues they issued the NOC, but according to OP they are entitled to collect the interest from 01.04.2007 to 03.09.2007. OP calculated the said interest and collected it. As already observed by us complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. In our view OP has acted in pursuance of the said terms and conditions. 11. The other allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless. On the plain reading of the complaint allegations they did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency in service. Rather it discloses the case relating to settlement of account and for the balance in due, on the basis of the accounts. In our view the complainant did not follow within the ambit of Section 2(1)(c)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act. If the complainant is so advised he can file a proper civil suit to redress his remedy if at all OP is in due of certain amount. With these observations we find it is not a fit case wherein complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. Complainant appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer pint Nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of August 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT s.n.m.