Babu P.M. vs. The Branch Manager - Kerala High Court, 23 June 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN TUE AY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.7592 OF 2020(Y) PETITIONER: BABU P.M., AGED 59 YEARS S/O.M.P.MANI, PALLATH VEEDU, HOUSE NO.24/451, PALLATH ROAD, (NEAR ST.GEORGE L.P.SCHOOL), THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM - 682305. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRUTHY N. BHAT RESPONDENTS: 1 THE BRANCH MANAGER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 301. 2 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN, FIRST FLOOR, RBI BUILDING, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM - 695

001.

R1 BY SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2 WP(C).No.7592 OF 2020(Y) JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to refund the entire amount collected from the petitioner by way of take over charge within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court: (ii) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to secure the ends of justice.”

The petitioner availed a housing loan from the 1st respondent bank. The loan was subsequently taken over by the Bank of India. According to the petitioner, at the time of take over, the 1st respondent collected amounts by way of take over charges / pre-closure charges, which the 1st respondent is not entitled to.

Voicing the grievance, the petitioner had approached the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, as per Ext.P2, on merits found that, as per the relevant RBI circular, the 1st respondent is entitled to collect such charges where the rate of interest applicable

3 WP(C).No.7592 OF 2020(Y) was fixed rate, as was in the case of the petitioner. However, the Ombudsman directed the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and to extent all possible benefits.

It appears that pursuant to Ext.P2 order of the Ombudsman, the petitioner was granted some benefits. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner again approached the Ombudsman as per Ext.P3. The Ombudsman rejected the application as it had already considered the claim and orders passed. It is thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant writ petition.

Heard Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.N.Raghuraj, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

As noticed supra, the contention of the petitioner that he has no liability to pay the pre-closure charges has already been considered on merits and negatived by the Ombudsman and the said order has become final. That apart, I do notice that the order passed by Ombudsman was based on the relevant RBI

4 WP(C).No.7592 OF 2020(Y) circular.

It is next by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in Ext.P4 receipt issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent, it is indicated that no amounts were collected towards GST, however, the stand taken by the 1st respondent is that an amount of Rs.6,318/- has been collected towards GST. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that though Ext.P4 receipt does not indicate collection of any amounts towards GST, the relevant books of records maintained by 1st respondent reflects the amount. In other words, the contention of the 1st respondent is that the non-mentioning of any amounts as GST in Ext.P4 receipt is only a mistake. I do not find any reason to discard the explanation offered. The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. SATHISH NINAN rsr JUDGE

5 WP(C).No.7592 OF 2020(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11/04/2018. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ORDER DATED 09/05/2019 IN COMPLAINT NO.170/2018 BY THE CO-OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P3OF THE LETTER COM/170/18(1)/2019 DATED 28/12/2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFCIE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE SECOND APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4OF THE BILL DATED 26/03/2018 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF THE CLOSURE OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.56 DATED 18.10.2019.