VIJAYA BANK, MAIN BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. V GILBERT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised before us at the Bar is as to whether the order passed by the lower Forum directing the appellant bank to return Rs. 13,722 alleged to be realised from the complainant/respondent by way of excess interest during the period from 9/1991 to 12/1992 i.e., alleged to be realised in excess of the maximum rate of interest allowed to be charged from a debtor (herein the case on hand from the complainant/respondent) by the Reserve Bank of India as per the circulars issued by it is sustainable or not. Forum below directed the appellant to pay interest at 16% per annum on that amount (Rs. 13722) if not paid within two months from the date of passing of that order. Forum below also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000.

(2.) ATTACKING the impugned order passed by Forum below (Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. 13/1997) two -fold submissions are made before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. He submitted before us that the appellant bank has realised from the respondent only interest at the rate allowed to be charged by the Reserve Bank of India. The other ground projected before us is that Lower Forum should not have passed such an order in view of Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act (10 of 1948). Counsel also submitted before us that claim is barred by limitation and that the complainant was not a consumer on the ground that transaction was closed in the year 1996.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to resolve the controversy we have to bear in mind the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions rendered by it in Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gowda and Another, 1994 5 SCC 213, State Bank of India v. Yasangi Venkateswara Rao, 1999 AIR(SC) 896 and Asheed Pratap Singh and Ors. v. M. Sachdeva and Others,2003 AIR(SC) 140 In Corporation Bank s case the Apex Court observed thus: