SURESH KUMAR REDHU Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 29. 5. 2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant against the respondent-opposite party has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts as set out in the complaint in nutshell are that the complainant had availed house loan facility of Rs. 3 lacs from the opposite party on 29. 3. 2003. He was allotted account No. 10159n025160. Thereafter, the complainant shifted the loan to another Bank, as the opposite party did not fulfil the requirements for further loan. Accordingly, he paid the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,99,940 vide draft No. 344581 on 22. 11. 2003. In addition, he deposited Rs. 2,600 in cash on 18. 11. 2003 with the opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party had charged excess rate of interest @ 2% over and above the rate of interest stipulated in the original loan agreement for the entire period of loan and that amount comes to Rs. 6,000. Accordingly, he called upon the opposite party to refund the above stated amount but without any response from it. Forced by these circumstances the complainant filed the present complaint and sought directions to refund the amount along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit which is 25. 11. 2003. In addition the complainant claimed Rs. 20,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that the complainant had showed his inability to fulfil the requirements of further loan as per conditions of the opposite party and as such allegations made by the complainant in this regard are unfounded. At the same time it admitted that the complainant had returned the remaining amount of loan as stated in the complaint. It further justified the interest charged @ 2% as prepayment charges over the agreed rate of interest in terms of Clause 4 (i) of the Arrangement letter which was duly signed by the complainant. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum found no substance in the stand of the complainant and dismissed the complaint as per order dated 29. 5. 2006. It is against the said order the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.