S K KUMARA SWAMY Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainants 1 to 4 each took an agricultural loan of Rs.5 lakhs from the Bank of Tamilnadu, which has since been taken over by the opposite party, Indian Overseas Bank. Some additional loans were also taken by the complainants 1 to 3. As collateral security for the loans, Title Deeds of property worth 4 to 5 Crores were deposited with the Bank of Tamilnadu. After the Bank of Tamilnadu got merged with the opposite parties, Indian Overseas Bank, the complainants repaid all the loans on 28-6-1991. The payments were made at the Oppanakara Street branch of the Indian Overseas Bank, where the Title Deeds were deposited. But the Title Deeds were not returned in spite of repeated demands and even in spite of registered notice. It is further alleged that the loans were sanctioned at 12.5% interest. But subsequently the opposite parties have been collecting interest at 15% and 17.5% at various stages. As a result of this enhancement, a sum of Rs.4,54,865/- has been paid as interest over and above the interest legally payable. This complaint has therefore been filed to recover the sum of Rs.4,54,865/- paid as interest over and above the interest payable, to handover the documents of title deeds and compensation in the sum of Rs.4 lakhs.

(2.) The opposite parties in their counter admitted the loans borrowed by the complainants and the discharge of those loans. But it is contended that the complainants were duly informed by the then Bank of Tamilnadu of the enhancement at the rate of 15% for the quarter ended 30th September, 1985 and at 17.5% thereafter. The complainants were fully aware of the same and agreed for charging at the enhanced rate. After amalgamation of the Bank of Tamilnadu with the opposite parties, Indian Overseas Bank, the complainants have executed a Debit Confirmation dated 11-12-1990 where they have acknowledged the debt due as on 19-2-1990 at the enhanced rate of interest. The complainants have settled the outstanding due to the Bank out of their full will and wish without any protest and they cannot after more than one year, question or claim any deficiency of service on the ground of collecting excess interest. As regards the non-return of documents, it is contended that the complainants continued to owe to the Bank certain sum by way of interest on overdraft of Rs.5 lakhs, made separately. Notwithstanding the above, the bank was ready to release the documents and written a letter dated 20-8-1992 asking the complainants to come and receive the Title Deeds. As it had to consider the question of releasing the Title Deeds in spite of the fact that there are some dues, some time has been taken. There was no deficiency of service or negligence.

(3.) Exhibits A1 to A14 and B1 to B9 are marked. Proof affidavits are filed. The complainants have taken several loans from the Bank of Tamilnadu, which has subsequently got merged with the Indian Overseas Bank. After the amalgamation, all the loans have been settled and the amounts repaid on 28-6-1991. The case of complainants is that the loans were sanctioned at 12.5% interest p. a. But subsequently the interest has been collected at 15% and 17.5% at various stages, and the excess interest so collected come to Rs.4,54,865/- which is claimed in this complaint. The contention of the opposite party is that as per the directions of the Reserve Bank, the complainants were duly informed by the then Bank of Tamilnadu under Exhibit Bl that interest would be charged on the agricultural loan at 15% for quarter ended 30-9-1985 and at 17.5% thereafter. It is only in accordance with this intimation, subsequent interest has been claimed at 15% and 17.5%. The complainants did not raise any protest. It is further pointed out that under Exhibit B2, dated 11-12-1990, the first complainant as Managing Director of the 4th complainant, Company has executed a Debit Confirmation letter admitting the outstanding at Rs.1,83,104.95 including interest, charges, expenses etc. The complainants have also settled the account on 28-6-1991 and paid the entire debt with interest at the enhanced rate without any protest. As rightly contended by the opposite parties, they have voluntarily settled the claim and it is not open to them to contend that excess interest has been collected from them and the same must be refunded. This claim must therefore fail.