IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18163 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.K.VENUGOPALAN, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AYSWARYA, CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., TRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VARAVOOR BRANCH, P.B.NO.1, THALI P.O., THRISSSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL OFFICE-VI, THRISSUR. 3. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, IST FLOOR, R.B.I.BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. K.S. DILEEP, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.18163 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th August,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner availed an agricultural loan along with his wife and daughter. The ornaments belonging to his wife and daughter were pledged. The rate of interest chargeable is 7% provided the loan was repaid within 12 months. If there is a default, pledged ornaments were to be auctioned at the discretion of the bank. It is further mentioned that penal interest of 2% will be charged till the closure of the loan account if the period of repayment exceeds 12 months. According to the petitioner, amounts were repaid during the period of one year though not entirely so as to close the loan account. He requested for an extension. 2. Extension was granted. But later he was directed to pay Rs.12,475/- for redeeming the pledged ornaments. He approached the Banking Ombudsman complaining of excessive rate of interest charged by the bank. Bank contended that interest at the agreed rates W.P ( C) No.18163 of 2009 2 were alone charged. By a cryptic order Ext.P7 dated 3.3.2009 Ombudsman has rejected the complaint and hence the writ petition. Ext.P7 reads as follows: “This refers to the above complaint. On a careful examination of the complaint, reply furnished by the bank and the deliberations in the Hearing conducted on February 16,2009 at Kochi, the Banking Ombudsman has directed to advise you as under: The agricultural Gold loan was sanctioned to you on 24.4.2007. One of the preconditions of the loan was to remit interest on quarterly intervals. However in the case of your loan, interest was not paid as per the agreed terms and hence the bank is entitled to charge higher rate of interest. The bank's action of charging 13.50% on overdue loans is therefore in order. 2. As no deficiency is observed on the part of the bank, your complaint is treated as closed in terms of clauses 13(d) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. This is issued with the approval of the Banking Ombudsman. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Ombudsman has not applied his mind to the contentions raised by the petitioner. W.P ( C) No.18163 of 2009 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank. 5. I take note of the fact that petitioner has paid the entire amount demanded by the Bank. His contention that excessive rate of interest is actually charged merits serious consideration. That is not reflected in the order. Petitioner may thereafter be heard again and a fresh order may be passed by the Ombudsman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . Ext.P7 is quashed for the said purpose. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.18163 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.18163 of 2009 5