This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to furnish a detailed account statement concerning the impugned loan transaction showing the amount legally due from the complainant and to close the loan accounts against receipt of the amount legally due from the complainant together with a sum of  ` 5000 as compensation.

The brief facts of the case is as follows :  Complainant availed an agricultural loan from opposite party as per loan No. PH cashew 89/94-95 dated 08.11.94 by mortgaging his property.  Though an amount of     ` 34,610 was sanctioned the opposite party paid only ` 32,350 by way of 4 instalments commencing from 08.11.1994 and ending on 16.08.1997.  Repayment period was 12 years with 14% interest subjected to modification of interest rate by RBI, Co-op Department, NABARD etc.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party imposing interest, penal interest, miscellaneous charges interest on interest, illegally against the direction of co-op. Department.  The benefit interest subsidiaries provided by Govt. of Kerala, the World Bank, NABARD etc are not provided to the complainant.  Morotorium benefits of Govt. for a period of 6 months in 2002 and one year in 2004 had not been sanctioned to complainant.  5% of the total amount was paid by the complainant at the time of availing the said loan as share value.  Written complaint was filed before Registrar and Reserve Bank etc on 22.06.2004 against illegal charges.  Joint Registrar conducted enquiry and a direction was given to the opposite parties to pay the excess amount levied after realizing the gross irregularities.  The delay in repayment was not at all wilful.  There was massive destruction of crops belonging to the complainant by attack of wild animals.   On this reason writ petition was moved before Hon’ble High Court of Kerala seeking compensation from the Govt.  In pursuance of the direction of Hon’ble High Court an application was filed before the bank on 03.09.03 to furnish detailed account statement regarding the loan.  But they have not furnished the account.  The village officer Aralam also have made request for furnishing detailed account statement.  Opposite party preferred to issue a reply dated 14.01.2005 showing lump sum amount in capsule form without furnishing the details. It shows Bank has charged exorbitant amount by way of miscellaneous charges and penal interest and capitalization of interest.  It was illegal and against direction of Co-op Department.  Complainant was denied the benefit of the Agricultural loan removal scheme 2005 with low interest rate of 8.5% since complainant has preferred complaint.  So complainant could not avail the benefit of Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme.  As per the letter dated 14.01.05 of Bank to Village Officer the Opposite Party Bank has claimed ` 56,107 as on 14.01.2005.  Subsequently in the forclosure notice dated 25.06.2009 Bank has claimed ` 67,935 towards principle amount along with other charges. Even according to the opposite parties a sum of ` 8,110 is obtained by the complainant as per the loan waiver scheme of Central Govt. 2008.  The substantial portion of the amount paid by the complainant has been illegally accounted towards interest, penal interest, miscellaneous charges etc and claiming exorbitant amount illegally.  The complainant could not avail the benefit of the loan waiver scheme proposed by Central Govt. in the year 2008 due to the latches of opposite party bank.  As per the calculation of the complainant the due amount is only ` 30,000.  Complainant undertake to pay the amount due legally and she apprehend that justice will be denied to her.  Hence this complaint.

Pursuant to the notice 1^st and 2^nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegation of the complainant. The contents of contentions raised by opposite parties are as follows :  The complainant obtained loan ` 32,450 in 4 instalments ie ` 25070, ` 2570, ` 2790, ` 2070 with 14% interest for the first two instalments and 16% for the last two instalments. The interest rate reduced to 12% from 01.04.2004 onwards. Opposite party bank have not obtained benefits so far from world bank.  Bank has not collected interest on interest.  Opposite party bank levied reasonable miscellaneous charges only ` 4046 as state debt relief and ` 4064 as Central relief has been given to complainant towards the loan liability.  Complainant has to repay the loan instalments on or before 1<sup>st</sup> day of March in each year.  Complainant has not paid instalments in time as per schedule.  On 31.08.2009 the total loan due is ` 75,313.  The amount paid by the complainant has already accounted towards the loan account.   Even according to complainant the last payment was on 30.06.2000 and no payment made thereafter.  Hence a huge amount is in due.  Hon’ble High Court directed the complainant to pay the loan due to the Bank.  This opposite party is ready to furnish detailed account statement to the complainant.  Further the opposite party bank had already furnished detailed account statement several times.  But she did not take care to pay the dues.  Last several years in February and March Govt. of Kerala and such other authorities had offered several packages to instigate loan due irradication.  However the complainant was not ready to repay the amount.  Complainant did not visit the opposite party bank and also not filed application for detailed accounts.  It is therefore opposite party took steps to realize the arrears.  The total loan amount due as on 31.08.09 is ` 75,313. the rate of interest is 12% from 01.04.2004 onwards.  The benefit ordered by the Central Govt. in the year 2008 had given to the complainant to the extent of her entitlement. The benefit is determined by Govt. agencies and not opposite party bank.   The complainant is devoid of merits.  Hence to dismiss the case.

On the above pleading the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.         Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2.         Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

3.         Relief and cost?

The evidence consists of documentary Ext.A1 to A14 and oral evidence of DW1.

Issues 1 to 3 :

          Admittedly complainant availed agricultural loan from opposite party bank commencing from 08.11.1994 and ending on 16.08.1997.  The case of the complainant is that opposite party has been claiming exhorbitant amount illegally and the amount paid by the complainant has been illegally accounted towards interest, penal interest and miscellaneous charges etc.  Complainant was denied various benefits declared by Government Central and State.  Complainant was even denied the benefit of the interest subsidies provided by Govt. of Kerala, the World Bank, NABARD etc, even the moratorium benefits of Government for a period of 6 months in 2002 and one year in 2004  so also denied the benefit of the agricultural loan renewal scheme 2005 with loan interest rate of 8.5%.  Complainant could not avail the benefit of the Loan Waiver Scheme proposed by Central Government in the year 2008 due to the latches on the part of opposite party bank.  Complainant is ready to repay the loan amount legally due provided opposite party has to furnish detailed account statement regarding the loan.

          The case of the 1^st opposite party on the other hand is that the Hon’ble High Court directed the complainant to pay the loan due to the Bank.  Opposite party is ready to furnish detailed account statement to complainant. Opposite party bank had already furnished detailed account statement several times.  But complainant did not take care to pay the dues.  Complainant made last payment on 30.06.2000.  The amount paid by the complainant already adjusted towards loan amount. The interest rate reduced to 12% from 01.04.2004 ` 4046 as state debt relief and ` 4064 as central relief has been given to complainant.  Complainant has not paid the loan instalments in time.  The total loan due on 31.08.2009 is ` 75313.  Complainant had not been ready to repay the amount though last several years in February and March Govt. of Kerala and such other authorities had offered several packages to instigate loan due eradication.  Complainant never visited the opposite party bank and applied for detailed statement of account.

          No oral evidence adduced by complainant but produced 14 documents to prove the complainant’s case. Opposite party adduced oral evidence but no documents produced in support of opposite party’s case.  The secretary of 2^nd opposite party examined as DW1.  The affidavit evidence filed by opposite parties in tune with the pleadings of opposite parties stated that complainant did not repay the loan as stipulated by the agreement.  Complainant is liable to pay ` 75,313 on 31.08.2009.  From 01.04.2004 onwards the rate of interest reduced to 12%.  The entire amount paid by the complainant had been adjusted towards the loan account.  The statement of account has been given to complainant several occasions.  Complainant did not take care to clear the loan account availing the benefits of different packages declared by Central and State Government.

          DW1/Secretary of 2^nd opposite party has been cross examined for complainant elaborately.  Opposite party has also filed answers for the interrogatories.  DW1 admitted that he is aware of the debt relief scheme of 2008.  He has also deposed that he is aware that as per the scheme `8110 had been allotted to complainant. Admitting that Ext. A12 is the account statement given to complainant by Bank, he has deposed that “Statement t\m¡n-bm H¶n¨v  8110 cq] credit sNbvX-Xmbn ImWn-Ã.” Moreover DW1 admitted the fact that in 2002 and in 2004 there were Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme.   He has also admitted that it is answered in interrogatories that ` 2312 had been credited towards alleged loan in 2002 and ` 4046 in 2004.  Then he deposed in answering next question that “]cm-Xn-¡m-cn¡v sImSp¯ account statement Cu c­p kwJ-y-Ifpw credit sNbvX-Xmbn ImWp-¶n-Ã.”  This answer makes it clear that complainant was denied that benefit of the said scheme.  When the counsel for the complainant specifically suggested that the reason for non-producing the relevant records in connection with the alleged loan is due to the reason that the concoction in connection with the loan account would be revealed if it was produced before Forum. DW1 answered that it is not correct but opposite party did not produce any such document before this Forum.  Non-production of such document thus proves that the complainant was denied the particular benefit of the scheme.  The records are kept with the bank.  If they want to prove the truth, it is easy for the opposite party to produce the same record before the Forum.  If that being not produced it can only be presumed, in the ordinary sense that there is malpractices tantamounts to deficiency of service.  It is pertinent to note what is deposed in another question with respect to the rate of interest is that “2Dw 3Dw LSp-¡Ä¡v 16% ]eni CuSm-¡m-sa¶ Hcp tcJbpw lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«n-Ã…………. interest rate simple interest Iq«msX  bank\v AÀl-X-bp-s­¶v ]d-ªm icn-bm-Wv.”  It is also relevant to note the answer on DW1 that “Kannur Joint Registrar At\-z-jWw \S-¯nb FXr-I£n _m¦v     miscellaneous C\-¯n Aan-X-NmÀÖv CuSm-¡nb XpI Is­¯n Xncn¨p sImSp-¡m³ Bh-i-y-s¸-«p-sh¶v ]d-ªm icn-bm-Wv.  A[nI XpI CuSm-¡n-bXv Final account ]cn-K-Wn-¡m³ R§Ä X¿m-dm-Wv…….. kÀ¡p-eÀ {]Imcw hmbv] XpI AS-¨-Xn-\p-tijw _m¡n kwJy t_m[-y-s¸-Sp-¯m³ _m¦n\v _m[-y-X-bp-­v.  Ext A3 cio-Xn-I-fn balance kwJy sImSp-¯n-«n-Ã.”  The above evidence goes to show that opposite party bank was directed by Joint Registrar to return the excess charge levied by them.  It is a positive approach that they are ready to adjust the amount in final account. But opposite party cannot deny that no excess amount had been charged from the complainant.

          In the light of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that there is clear deficiency on the part of opposite party.  The expression of willingness of opposite party in the positive way that they are ready to furnish the detailed account of statement, adjust the excess amount received and ready to take interest in accordance with the circular, if true and genuine, opposite party has to take initiative by furnishing true, correct detailed statement to settled the matter without further delay against receipt of legally due amount.  Opposite party is liable to furnish detailed statement of account and also liable to pay an amount of ` 5000 as compensation with a sum of ` 1000 as cost of this litigation.  Thus issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly.

          In the result complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to furnish the complainant detailed statement of account and to pay an amount of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation with a sum of ` 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

                          Sd/-                   Sd/-                      Sd/-

President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Copy of passbook

A2.  Copy of loan sanctioned order.

A3(a) to (e) .  Copy of cash receipts.

A4.  Auction declaration form.

A5.  Copy of lawyer notice dated 11.07.09.

A6.  Copy of circular.

A7.  Letter dated 13.01.05.

A8.  Letter dated 14.01.05.

A9.  Affidavit

A10. Notice of OP.

A11.  Notice of OP.

A12.  Statement from Bank.

A13.  Copy of Application under RIA, 2005 to OP.

A14.  Reply to RIA act application.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1. Jayan P.V 

                                                                           /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT