M G K Murty vs Umesh Kumar Gopala

SRI MGK Murthy, the complainant, availed a loan in the sum of Rs. 38,000/ - from SBI Credit. Sri Umesh Kumar Gopala, Sr. Executive Operations GE Money and Sh. Ajay Bharathi, Asst. Vice President, SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. are its functionaries. The complainant was charged interest and processing fee in advance for two years and EMI was fixed at Rs.1900/ - per month for 24 months. Although, the petitioner paid the EMI regularly, yet, he was charged with penalties and he paid Rs. 1900/ - in place of a negative total amount. The petitioner protested but did not get satisfactory reply. He approached the Banking ombudsman and ultimately he filed a complaint before the District Forum.

THE OPs could not appear and therefore, they were proceeded against ex -parte. The Fora below came to the conclusion that in the absence of any authority imposing the penal fee and collection of processing fee is bad and arbitrary. The negligence of the OPs stood proved.

THE State Commission remanded the case back to the District Forum. The District Forum held that the complainant is entitled to the refund of amount in the sum of Rs. 46,610/ - from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, together with interest @ 9% per annum. It also awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. The District Forum also awarded interest @ 9% per annum. The complainant filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation as he was claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ -. The State Commission dismissed the appeal after taking into consideration the authorities reported as: - "1. Citi Bank N.A. vs Geekay Agropack Pvt Ltd., and another, 2008 15 SCC 102. 2. Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh, 2004 5 SCC 65. 3. Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Rajnish Chander Sharda, 2004 5 SCC 87. 4. Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra, 2002 1 SCC 367 and 1963 AIR(P&H) 411 5. State of Gujarath vs. Shantilal Mangaldas, 1969 AIR(SC) 634 6. Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others,2000 SAR(Civil) 935."

WE have heard the petitioner in person. He has filed the compilation running into 225 pages. To our kind it is sheer wastage of time. Petitioner vehemently argued that he is an old person suffering from various ailments. He could not show to the satisfaction of this Commission that those ailments had arisen due to this case. He has also relied upon the authorities, which have been detailed above as well as few English authorities. He contended that he will be satisfied if the amount is enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/ -.

WE see no merit in his arguments. There is a lot of difference between the orders passed by the English Courts and the Indian Courts, everything has to be considered in accordance with the facts and circumstances prevailing in a particular country. It is true that exemplary damages vindicate the strength of Law and act as a check of arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. However, we are of the considered view, under the circumstances prevalent in this country, the compensation granted by the Fora below is correct and cannot be faulted.

THE Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.