CANARA BANK Vs. V G BIJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 1810.2010 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'the State Commission') in appeal No. 677 of 2009 Canara Bank, the opposite party in the complaint before the District Consumer Forum, has filed this petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum thereby allowing the complaint and giving certain directions to the opposite party-petitioner to charge interest only @7.5% for the loan availed by the complainants besides directing them to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,500 as cost of litigation. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and upholding the finding of the District Consumer Forum holding the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service as also having adopted unfair trade practice and has modified the order passed by the District Consumer Forum with the stipulation that interest @ 7.5 % p.a. shall be compounded monthly.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Jos Chiramel, learned Counsel representing the petitioner-opposite party-Bank but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent-complainants as despite due service of notice and even the respondents having received a sum of Rs. 10,000; in order to enable them to come to this Commission and to defend the present proceedings, they are not represented on record. One Advocate, Mr. Jogy Scaria, appears and states that he is proxy Counsel for Mr. M. S. Vishnusarkar, Counsel for the respondents, whose Vakalatnama has not been filed on record so far, and that Mr. Vishnusarkar is busy in Supreme Court. We cannot recognize him even as a proxy Counsel representing the respondents.

(3.) Mr. Jos Chiramel, learned Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order passed by the Fora below primarily on the ground that the same are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the material brought on record viz. sanction letter and loan agreement which contain specific stipulation in regard to the rate of interest being floating subject to a minimum of 7.5 % per annum and it could be upto @ 3.5 per annum of the Prime Term Lending Rate (PTLR). We would like to reproduce the relevant Clause 6 of the agreement here: