Back
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
Appeal No. 1162/2019
|
Apurva Nagoree V/s |
….Appellant |
|
The Branch Manager JK Towrers, Sangam Circle, Jayanagar 8th block, |
..…Respondent |
O R D E R
BY
The complainant preferred this appeal against the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore in C.C.No.839/2015 which dismissed complaint holding that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP. appellant/complainant submits that he had availed housing loan to the tune of Rs.11,80,000/- and Rs.9,25,000/- on 29.12.2005 and 30.12.2005 respectively. There afterwards, the complainant has prematurely closed loan accounts for which the OP company has levied preclosure charges on the said loans. As per RBI guidelines OP company not suppose to levy preclosure charges. Hence, alleged deficiency in service. But, the District Commission not appreciated the evidence of complainant and dismissed the complaint. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and to direct OPs to pay amount of Rs.23,851/- and Rs.18,697/- which was collected as foreclosure charges along with compensation.
- Heard from the appellant. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission there is no dispute that the complainant has availed two housing loans from OP which was prematurely closed by complainant voluntarily. The only dispute raised by complainant is that OP bank have collected Rs.23,851/- and 18,697/- respectively for two housing loans from complainant and submits that there is no any direction/guidelines from RBI and relied upon the RBI circular dated 05.06.2012 and submits that it is deficiency in service on the part of OP in collecting foreclosure charges and sought setting aside of the order.
- Whereas, the District Commission in its order categorically mentioned that RBI circular dated 05.06.2012 was subsequent to the closure of loans by complainant. The loan accounts of the complainant were closed on 06.09.2011 and RBI circular was circulated on 05.06.2012, after lapse of one year. The said circular has no retrospective effect, but, only prospective effect. The loan accounts which are prematurely closed are levied preclosure charges by the OP which are prior to the circular. Hence, we find there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. District Commission has rightly appreciated the evidence of both the parties and dismissed the complaint, as such appeal fails. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
CV*
