IMPORTANT POINT
Statutory Provision – Since the amount has been collected in accordance with the mandate of the statutory provision, it cannot be said that such collection was unreasonable in any manner.

ORDER

K. Surendra Mohan, President—The opposite parties 1 and 2 in C.C.No.139/2013 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad, Kalpetta (the District Forum for short) challenge in this appeal an order dated 18.05.2015, partly allowing the complaint. The complainant is the 1st respondent and the 3rd opposite party in the complaint is the 2nd respondent herein. As per the order appealed against, the District Forum has disallowed the claim of the appellants that they were entitled to recover 5% collection charges towards the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against the complainant and has reduced the same to 2.5%. The case of the appellants is that, recovery of 5% is statutorily fixed and cannot be interfered with by the District Forum under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The 1st respondent/complainant had approached the District Forum complaining that the appellants and the 1st respondent had initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings against him for recovery of the amount payable to them. But, such proceedings were dropped since the recovery proceedings were not completed, it was alleged that recovery of the entire 5% as charges was therefore, unjustified.

3. The entire dispute arose in the following facts and circumstances:

The 1st respondent/complainant was the sole proprietor of the business concern by name M/s Sahira Furniture and Industries, Kambalakkad. He had availed financial facility form the Kerala State Financial Corporation for his business purposes offering security and agreeing to repay the amount in instalments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between them. According to the complainant, due to unforeseen circumstances he could not make repayments as per the schedule stipulated. Therefore, recovery steps were initiated against him and his business concern. Thereupon, he approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala with W.P.(C)No.10012/2011(B). His petition was considered by the High Court and he was directed to remit the dues in instalments within a specified period. In the meantime, the appellants had initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings for the recovery of the amounts remaining in default. The 2nd respondent who initiated the recovery proceedings on behalf of the Revenue Department had levied an amount of Rs.40,886/-(Rupees Forty Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Six) as Revenue Recovery charges which was debited to the account of the complainant. Apart from the above, an amount of Rs.12,500/-(Rupees Twelve Thousand Five Hundred) incurred as legal charges was also debited to his account.

4. The case of the complainant is that, he had paid the entire amount in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Hight Court. Therefore, the Revenue Recovery proceedings were dropped. In view of the above, levy of full charges on him was without any justification. According to him, though an order of attachment of his property was made on 01.03.2013 the attachment was released on the same day itself. Therefore, he contended that the appellants were not entitled to

recover the Revenue Recovery charges or legal charges that the High Court had not directed him to pay.

5. On receipt of notice from the District Forum, the appellants appeared and filed their version. According to them, the complainant had availed a term loan of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs) and a working capital loan of Rs.2,13,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Thirteen Thousand) in the month of February 2000 for setting up a wood-based industry by name M/s Sahira Furniture. He had executed a loan agreement with the Corporation on 24.04.2000 and had created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 28.02.2000 for securing the loans.

6. As per the terms of the agreement, the term loan was to be repaid within a period of seven years in seventy three monthly instalments and the working capital loan was to be repaid within a period of seven years in sixty one monthly instalments together wit