Act for an order directing the opposite party to furnish a proper calculation statement showing the actual amount legally due to complainant and to refund the amount illegally collected from the complainant along with ` 10,000 as compensation and cost.

          The complainant’s case is that she is an agriculturist and the member of opposite party bank having membership no.12560. She had availed a loan under Special Agricultural Development unit as per loan no.M.T.R.C.R.141.  The loan is sanctioned with financial assistance from Government of Kerala and Agricultural Refinance land Development Corporation.  But the complainant had received only ` 18450 eventhough `27000 was sanctioned to her. As per the above scheme, the balance instalments were to be disbursed to the complainant improving the coconut garden belonging to her.  But after giving the above said instalments the opposite party bank abruptly stopped payment on the ground that the Government of Kerala abolished the scheme.  The complainant had suffered much hardships as the investment already made by her availing the loan has been rendered useless due to non-availability of funds to carry out the further agricultural operations.  So the complainant was constrained to file a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.  As per the terms of the said loan, the complainant was expected to repay the loan within a period of 15 years and the rate of interest was 10.5%.  During 1985-89, the complainant has paid a total sum of ` 13,250.95 towards the repayment of the loan.  The complainant has paid a sum of ` 2,467 on 26.02.85, ` 2872.16 on 28.02.86, `2,298.05 on 24.02.87, ` 2,306.75 on 26.02.88 and ` 2,306.75 on 28.02.89.  But the opposite parties have not accounted the amount paid by the complainant in the above loan account.  The opposie parties are calculating interest illegally and against all legal norms.  They are imposing penal interest and interest on interest without any basis.  The Government of Kerala and the opposite party’s bank introduced O.T.S. and some reliefs were promulgamated in respect of over due loans.  As per the scheme for settlement of overdue loans formed by the opposite party bank, the members who are paying the entire due amount are not liable to pay penal interest.  As per the press not given by president and one Director of bank, which was published on 22.12.05 in Mathrubhumi daily the complainant is entitled for waiver of the penal interest and as per the scheme of O.T.S. promulgated by co-operative department, the complainant is entitled for exemption of penal interest, compound interest and miscellaneous expenses.   As per the petition given by the opposite party’s bank execution proceedings was initiated by the sales officer against the complainant. As per the notice the sales officer, has demanded ` 18,450 as principal balance, ` 6,919 towards interest due, and a sum of ` 48,020 is shown as penal interest in the said notice.  As per the fore closure notice  dated 09.04.05 by the bank a sum of `18,450 is shown as principal balance and ` 6,919 is as interest and ` 46,650 as penal interest.  In fact only the principal amount as well as the interest due alone is liable to be paid n view of the O.T.S. proposed by Government of Kerala.  After getting the sale notice, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party with an amount of ` 25,639 with an intention to close the loan.   But the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party told the complainant that without payment of the entire penal interest and miscellaneous charges, he would not receive money from the complainant and directed her to file a petition before the sales officer and accordingly she had filed a petition before the sale officer.  Since there was no response the complainant was constrained to file a petition before J.R. of co-operative society requesting to interfere in the matter and to give a direction to opposite party bank to receive the actual amount which is liable to be paid by the complainant.  After filing the petition before J.R. the complainant received a letter from the Sales officer.  Since the property belonging to the complainant was already put for sale is public auction, the complainant was constrained to pay the entire amount demanded by the opposite party.  The complainant has paid `66,649 on 13.02.06 before the opposite party bank.  After payment the complainant made a written request to the opposite party bank to reimburse the penal interest and other benefits legally due to the complainant.  But the opposite party issued a letter stating that the complainant is not entitled for any benefit.  The mode of operation and attitude of the opposite party bank is even worse as that of a private money lender.  The opposite party has not accounted the amount paid by complainant during 1985  to 1989.  The calculation of interest by the opposite party is against all legal norms and against the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as per the full bench decision of the Apex Court which is reported in 203 KLT. The opposite party bank is not entitled to capitalize penal interest and interest on interest.  Though the complainant is entitled for settlement of the above loan account by waiving the penal interest, the opposite parties have not given the benefit to the complainant .  Even the principal balance of ` 18,450 demanded by the opposite party bank is illegal in view of the payments made by the complainant during 1985-89. The opposite paty has not sanctioned the moratorium benefits sanctioned by government of Kerala from time to time on agricultural loans.  The complainant obtained a certified copy of the ledger extract from opposite party bank in respect of the said loan and found that the accounting method is illegal and unscrupulous.  The complainant is entitled for refund of ` 40,791 levied under the head of penal interest and other miscellaneous charges.  The complainant suffered much mental agony on account of the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum, both opposite parties appeared and filed their version.  The opposite parties denied the version that the opposite party bank abruptly stopped payment on the ground that the Government of Kerala abolished the scheme.  The opposite party bank stopped the remaining instalments of the loan, since the complainant had not spend the disbursed amount as per the terms and conditions of the SADU scheme.  Against the alleged denial the complainant had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and obtained stay order and the same was disposed off in the year 2004.  Hence upto 2004,  the opposite party was not able to initiate steps to compel repayment of the loan.  The total outstanding upto 13.02.06 was ` 74, 432.  The opposite party bank has gave an exemption of `7,783 as subsidy and estimated the total liability to the tune of ` 66,649.  So the complainant paid the entire balance ie ` 66,649.  The rate of interest is     12 ½ % and not 10 ½ % and the period of loan re-payment was 12 years and not 15 years.  It is not correct to say that the opposite parties have not properly accounted the amount paid by the complainant in the loan account and calculated interest illegally etc.  The complainant has paid only ` 12,250.65 during 1985 to 1989.  It is not correct to say that the respondents are imposing penal interest and interest on interest without any basis.  The O.T.S. programme has came into existence on 27.02.2006.  On 13.02.2006 (ie date of payment by complainant) no such programme is in existence.  The opposite party bank has gave an exemption of ` 7,783 to the complainant as stated and this amount is penal interest.  So the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of O.T.S. as alleged.  The opposite party’s bank also introduced O.T.S. from 27.02.2006 as per the direction of Government of Kerala.  The amount of `7,783 has reduced as per the press note given by the Bank President and the intention of such press note was to accelerate the repayment of the loan.  The complainant is liable to pay with 12% interest on principle of ` 18,450 till realization.  The Sales Officer in E.P. issued a notice at 24.11.05 wherein some mistakes were crept with regard to the sum total of the amount.  A rectified demand notice was issued on 12.12.2005 showing the correct amount.  Second notice on 12.12.2005 was issued as corrigendum.  The total amount due to the bank as on 13.02.2006 is `74,432 and opposite party bank collected ` 66,649 after reducing `7,783. The opposite party bank has collected the contract rate of interest from the complainant.  After receiving 3<sup>rd</sup> instalment on 20.07.1986, she rushed to the High Court of Kerala, without utilizing the amount as prescribed by the SADU scheme.  Since the complainant has paid the entire amount on the date of 13.02.2006, the complainant is not entitled to get O.T.S. benefit.  The complainant delayed the repayment of loan amount not due to any kind of destruction of Agricultural crops.  The mode of calculation of interest is not against the dictum laid by Hon’ble Apex Court which was reported in 2003 KLT and the Act of opposite party bank will not attract the provisions of Usurious Loans Act.  The complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of Moratorium sanctioned by Government of Kerala. The opposite party has not collected the penal interest of ` 40,791 from the complainant and hence opposite party is not responsible for the mental pain and agony of complainant.  The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case as per section 69 and 100 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.  So the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above rival contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.     Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to try the case.

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

3.     Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

4.     Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts. A1 to A15.

Issue No.1 :

          The opposite parties contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case, as per Section 69 and 100 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.  But in Secretary Thirumugam Co-operative Agricultural credit Society Vs M. Lalitha, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was in addition to and not in derogation of other remedies available and hence the complaint is maintainable before Forum. So we are of the opinion n that it is a well settled position of law that this complaint is maintainable before the Forum and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

Issues No.2 to 4 :

          The further case of the complainant is that eventhough the opposite parties have sanctioned ` 27,000, disbursed only ` 18,450 and the complainant has repaid same amount during 85 to 89.  The opposite parties have not accounted the amount paid by the complainant properly and received huge amount for closing the loan account No. M.T.R.C.R. 141 under SADU scheme by way of interest, penal interest and miscellaneous charge, without considering the one time settlement.  In order to prove his case the complainant has produced documents such as mortgage deed, four receipts issued by opposite party dated 28.02.1986, 24.02.1987, 26.02.1988 and 28.02.1989, notice prior to sale, fore closure notice, declaration by Sale officer, closure statement, 2^nd notice prior to sale.  Copy of petition filed before J.R, notice dated 19.12.2005 by Sale Officer, loan ledger extract as on March 1993, application for refund dated 09.03.06 by complainant, reply issued by opposite party for the application dated 09.03.2006, paper advertisements and answer to interrogatories etc.  In order to disprove the case opposite party examined DW1.  Admittedly the opposite parties have sanctioned `27,000 and disbursed only ` 18,450 to the complainant by three instalments namely ` 7483 on 23.06.1982, 5225 on 15.02.83 and `5742 on 20.07.86.  In order to ascertain whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties the following questions to be answered first. Ie whether the complainant is entitled to waiver of entire penal interest, moratorium benefits and O.T.S. benefit and the subsidy amount sanctioned by the authority.  What is the actual interest rate, whether the amount paid by the complainant is towards interest or principal and what is the actual amount due by the complainant.

          According to the complainant as per the press note issued by the opposite party bank dated 22.12.2005 the complainant is entitled for waiver of entire penal interest.  The complainant has produced Ext.A14.   Press note published in Mathrubhumi daily at 22.12.2005.  The press note is issued by Bank President, Sri. V.C. Padmanabhan and Director T. Prasad.  This press note says that “IpSn-ÈnI XpI apgp-h\pw AS¨p XoÀ¡p¶ AwK-§Ä¡v 2006 amÀ¨v 31 hsc ]ng ]eni Hgn-hm-¡Â F¶nh tFÀs¸-Sp-¯n-b-Xmbn A[n-Im-cn-IÄ Adn-bn-¨p.” Ext.A13 is also a paper advertisement in Malayala Manorama daily given by the opposite party bank dated 08.03.2006.  This advertisement says that “I®qÀ, Xfn-¸-d¼v, Xe-tÈcn kl-I-cW ImÀjnI {Kma-hn-I-k\ _m¦p-I-fn kwØm\ kl-I-cW ImÀjnI {Kma-hn-I-k\ _m¦v kphÀ® Pq_nen Hä-¯-hW XoÀ¸m-¡Â / IpSn-ÈnI \nhm-cW ]²-Xn-bp-sS `mK-ambn \S-¸m-¡p¶ ]²-Xn.  I®qÀ, Xfn-¸-d-¼v, Xe-tÈcn kl-I-cW ImÀjnI {Kma-hn-I-k\ _m¦p-I-fn \n¶pw FSp¯ hmbv]-I-fn 31.12.2005 hsc IpSn-Èn-I-bmb FÃm Xcw hmbv]bpw Cu ]²-Xn-bn DÄs¸-Sp-¯p-¶-Xm-Wv.  ]ng ]en-ibpw aäv Nne-hp-Ifpw Hgn-hm¡n hogvN hcp¯nb XobXn apX ]W-bm-[mc \nc-t¡m, 12% ]eni \nct¡m tF-XmtWm Ipdhv B \nc-¡n _m¡n \nÂ]p apX-en\v IW-¡m-¡p¶ ]en-ibpw hogvN hcp-¯nb apXepw AS¨p XoÀ¡m-hp-¶-Xm-Wv.” So both these publication substantiate that the bank has introduced a scheme for waiver of penal interest during 2005-06 and one time settlement.  Ext. A15 ie answer filed by the opposite parties for the interrogatory about the date of permission for waiver of penal interest, it is stated that no permission is required, since it was a scheme of Central Government.  So the bank can introduce the scheme at once from the date of declaration of scheme by Central Bank.  Admittedly the complainant had repaid the loan on 13.02.2006 ie after the date of press note.  So the documents clearly shows that the complainant is entitled to get the benefit of waiver of penal interest. But since the complainant has closed the loan on 13.02.2006, he is not entitled to get the benefit of O.T.S. introduced by the bank as per A13 since it was introduced afterwards.  But the complainant is entitled to waiver of penal interest as per Ext.A.14 press note.

          The complainant further contended that the opposite party has not sanctioned the moratorium benefit available to the complainant by virtue of Kerala Agricultural Debt Relief Act, 2001, and 2004.  The complainant has produced circular No.41/02.  This circular was issued by Registrar of Co-operative Societies in order to clarify the date of pendency of debt as per the circular No.16/02 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court in O.P.15705/02 dated 19.06.2002.  This circular says that “2001-se ImÀjnI ISm-i-zmk\nbaw {]m_-e-y-¯n h¶ 29.12.2001-þ \ne-hn-ep-­m-bn-cp-¶Xpw AÊ apX XpI 50,000/þ cq] hscbpff IpSn-ÈnI BbXpw AÃm-¯-Xp-amb ImÀjnI IS-§Ä¡v 6 amk-t¯¡v ]eni Cfhpw XpSÀ¶v 30 amkw KUp-¡-fmbn Ipdª ]eni \nc-¡n hmbv] Xncn-¨-S-¡m-\p-ff kmh-Imiw e`n-¡p-¶-Xn\pw AÀl-X-bp-­m-bn-cn-¡pw.” So as per the circular the complainant is entitled to get 6 months moratorium from 29.12.2001.  The complainant has produced another circular having No.25/04 issued by Registrar of Co-operative Societies.  As per the Circular, “2001-se tIcf ImÀjnI IS-¡mÀ Xm¡m-enI Bi-zmk BIvänsâ  XpSÀ¨-bmbn 2001-þse BIvän IÀj-I³ F¶ \nÀÆ-N-\-¯n hcp¶ hy-àn¡v 29.12.2001-þ\v tij-ap-ff {]kvXpX BIvänse ISw F¶ \nÀÆ-N\ {]Im-c-ap-ff Øm]-\-§-fn C¶pw \ne-\n¡p-¶-Xmb ImÀjn-I-I-S-§Ä¡v am{Xw 23.01.04 apX Hcp hÀj-t¯¡v tamd-t«m-dnbw \ÂIp-¶-Xm-bn-cn-¡pw. “ So as per the above circular also the complainant is entitled to get moratorium benefit for one year from 23.01.2004.

          The complainant contended that the rate of interest is 10.5% and the amount paid by the complainant during the first five years is towards the principal and not towards the interest.  The Ext.A1 is the copy of mortgage deed, which is admitted by opposite party.  The clause 6 of this deed says that “ta 3þmw ]mc-bn hnh-cn-¨n-cn-¡p¶ hy-h-Ø-IÄ {]Imcw ]W-b-kw-Jy 27,000/þ ]²-Xn-bnse hy-h-Ø-IÄ {]Imcw Pe-tk-N-\-¯n-\p-ff XpI 10.5 % \nc-¡nepw aäm-h-i-y-§Ä¡p ]änb XpI 11% ]en-i-\n-c-¡nepw 15 sImÃ-¯n-\Iw Xncn-¨-S¨p sImffmw.”  The clause 3(b) states that “sX§p Irjn¡v ]²-Xn-bn \nÝ-bn-¨n-«p-ff XpI tF-¡-sdm-¶n\v InWÀ Ipgn-¡p-¶-Xn-\v 5225 I, ]¼p skän\v 4878 I.  t^mUÀ DÂ]m-Zn-¸n-¡m³ 1876 I. I¶p-Imen hm§m³ 2850 I sXmgp¯v ]Wn-bm³ 1900 I. F¶ tXmXn-em-Wv.” So it is clear that out of `18,450 sanctioned to the complainant `10,103 was for irrigation purpose and bears 10.5% interest and `8347 bears 11% interest.  So the opposite party is bound to calculate the interest on the rate of 10.5% for the amount of `10,103 and 11% for the rest of amount.”

          According to the complainant, for loans under SADU scheme no interest is payable for the 1^st 5 years.  But as per the Ext.A1 mortgage deed the complainant has to repay as per Clause (7) and according to clause (7) “ta ]mc-bn hnh-cn--¡p¶ hmÀjnI Xh-W-I-fpsS BZ-ys¯ XobXn 1988 amÀ¨v 1 Dw XpSÀ¶p-ff KUp-¡-fpsS Xo¿Xn Hmtcm sImÃhpw amÀ¨v 1þmw Xo¿-Xnbpw BIp-¶p.  A§ns\ hcp¶ Xo¿-Xntbm AXn\p ap¼mtbm ta 6þmw ]mc-bn ]d-ªn-cn-¡p¶ Hmtcm XhW XpIbpw _m¦n AS¨v R§Ä cioXn hm§n-s¡m-ffmw.”

The clause 6 says about the repayment of mortgage amount and it says that “ta 3þmw]mc-bn hnh-cn-¨n-cn-¡p¶ hy-h-Ø-IÄ {]Imcw ]W-b-kw-Jy 27000/þ cq] ]²-Xn-bnse hy-hØ {]Imcw Pe-tk-N-\-¯n-\p-ff XpI 10-.5 % ]eni\n-c-¡nepw aäm-h-i-y-§Ä¡v ssI¸-änb XpI 11% \nc-¡nepw 15 sImÃ-¯n-\Iw Xncn-¨-S¨p sImf-fmw.”

There is no other documents before us to show the repayment condition.  Admittedly the complainant had availed 1^st instalment on 23.06.1982 and last instalment on 20.07.1986 and as per Ext.A1 repayment starts with principal with interest on 1988 March ie the complainant has to start repayment after 5 ½ year from the date of disbursement of first instalment.   But the complainant contended that he has paid `2,467 on 26.02.1985, `2,872 on 28.02.1986, `2298.05 on 24.02.1987, `2306.75 on 26.02.1986 and `2306.75 on 28.02.89 ie the complainant had paid 9943.90 before the intended date of payment.  But the opposite party deposed before the Forum that “]cm-Xn-bn Xncn-¨-Shv ]d-ªXv correct BWv. AXmXv hÀjw ]en-i-b-S-¡-Ww.  hm§nb kwJ-y¡v ]en-i-b-S-¡m³ am{X-amWv _m²-y-X.”  But there is nothing stated in Ext.A1 that the complainant has to repay only interest for five years.  So we are of the opinion that bank is bound to account the above said amount towards the interest for the disbursed amount upto the date of repayment and has to account the balance amount towards the principal ie

          The date of first repayment is on 26.02.85.  On that date the complainant has availed only `12,708.  So the bank is bound to calculate 11% interest on the amount of `7483 and 10.5 % interest on the rest of amount of `5225. As per Ext.A2 receipt issued by opposite party the interest is shown as `769.55, default interest as `1184.70. But the complainant has paid the amount before the date of payment and hence the amount levied as default interest has to be accounted and deducted from the principal balance.  So as on 27.02.1985, the balance amount to be paid by the complainant ie `11,523.3.

          2^nd payment is on 28.02.86 `1722.75 and the interest adjustment is `1148.35. But the complainant contended that she has paid `2872.10 as second payment.  But the opposite party in his chief affidavit stated that “Ext.A2 1 apX 4 hsc tcJ-I-fnse AUvPÌvsaâv tImf-¯n ImWn¨ kwJy A\-ym-b-¡mcn ]W-ambn AS-¨-X-Ã.  ]eni am{Xw Xncn-¨-S-bvt¡-­p¶ Ime-b-f-hm-b-Xn-\m bYm-k-abw ]en-i-b-S-¡p-¶-hÀ¡v k_vknUn A\p-h-Zn-¨n-cp-¶p.  B ]eni k_vknUn A\-ym-b-¡m-cn¡v A\p-h-Zn-¨n-«p-f-fXpw BbXv ta¸Sn tcJ-I-fnse tImf-¯n hc-hmbn ImWn-¨n-«p-f-f-XmWv.”

As per 2^nd payment, the interest for

6278.3 at 11% from 26.02.1985 to                       =        692.813

28.06.02.1986

Interest for 5,225 with 10.5%

From 26.02.1985 to 28.02.1986                           =        548.63

                                                                             =        1247.44

Interest Subsidy                                                   =        1148.35

So the balance amount of interest                       =  1241.44 – 1148.35

                                                                             =  93.09

Balance amount paid                                           =   1723.75 – 93.09

                                                                             =    1630.66

So the balance principal amount

as on 29.02.1986 to be paid by the                      =        9892.64

                                                                                     =======

complainant

3^rd repayment is on 24.02.1987                           =        1978.55

3^rd instalment is released on 20.07.1986            =        5742

                                                                                     ====

Interest for `4647.64  at 11 % from

28.02.1986 to 24.02.1987                                    =        511.24

Interest for 5,225 with 10.5%

From 28.02.1986 to 24.02.87                               =        548.63

Interest for 5,742 from 20.07.1986 to

24.02.87 at 10.5%                                                =        351.70

Total                               =        1411.57

Interest adjustment by opposite party as per

                                                Ext. A2(2)             =        1319

                                                Balance                =        1411.57- 1319

                                                                             =        92.57

Balance to be deducted from Principal                 =        1978.55 – 92.57

So the balance amount to be paid by the

complainant as on 25.02.1987 is                =  (9892.64+5742)- 1885.98

=        13748.66   

          ========           

4^th repayment is on 26.02.1988                           =        1384.25

Interest for 3645.06 at 11% interest from

25.02.1987 to 26.02.1988                                    =        401

Interest for 10,103 from 25.02.1987

to 26.02.1988 at 10.5%                                        =        1060.82

                                                          Total            =        1461.82

Interest subsidy as per Ext.A2(3)                         =        922.50

                                                                             =        1461.82 – 922.50

                                                                             =        743.6

So balance paid                                                    =  1384.25 – 743.6

                                                                             =   539

So balance amount to be paid by complainant

as on 27.02.1988                                                 =   13748.66 - 539

                                                                             =   13209.66

5^th repayment on 28.02.1989                               =        1,384.25

Interest for 3106.66 with 11%

From  27.02.1988 to 28.02.1989                          =        342

Interest for 10,103 from 27.02.1988

To 28.02.1989 10.5%                                           =        1060.82

                                                                             =        1403

                                                                                     ====

Interest subsidy as per Ext.A2(4)                         =        922.50

                                                                             =        480

                                                                                    ====

Amount paid                                                        =  1384.25-480

                                                                             =   904

So balance amount to be paid by the complainant as on 29.02.1989 is

13748.66 – 904 = 12845

                             =====

          The opposite party deposed before the Forum that “SADU Scheme {]Im-c-ap-ff rule {]Imcw  5 instalment Bbn   principal AS-t¡-­Xp sIm­mWv 5 Xpey KUp-¡-fmbn hn`-Pn-¨-Xv.  BZys¯ 10 hÀjw principal Xncn-¨-Shv th­.” So according to this the complainant is liable to repay 1/5<sup>th</sup> of the `12845 on 23.06.1992 ie repayment of the amount starts only during 1992.  Moreover it is fond that the complainant is entitled to get 6 months moratorium benefit from 29.12.2001 and also one year moratorium benefit for one year from 23.01.04.

So interest for 12845 from  29.02.1989 to 23.06.1992

ie interest for the amount 10,103 from      =        10,103 X 10.5 X 3y 4m

29. 02.1989 to 23.06.1992 at 10.5%                             100                                                                                           =        3536.06

Interest for the amount  `2742

At 11% from 29.02.1989 to 23.06.1992      =        1005

                                                                   =        4541

Interest for the amount 12845 from 23.06.1992 to 29.12.2001

Ie interest for 10,103 at 10.5% from

23.06.1992 to 29.12.2001                          =  1060.82 X 9y X 6 mX10.5%

                                                                   =        10077

                                                                           =====

Interest for the amount 2742 at 11%          =   2742 X 11X 9 yX 6m

                                                                              100

                                                                   =        2867

                                                                   =        12944

No interest from 29.12.2001 to 29.06.2002 since it is the moratorium period as per circular No.41/02 and as per circular, the instalment was to be rearranged.

Interest from 29.06.2002 to 23.01.2004

At the rate of 11% for 2742               =        2742 X 11 X 1X 6m

                                                                      100

                                                          =        452

Interest from 29.12.2001 to 23.01.2004 at

10.5% for 10,103                                        =        10103X10.5X 1y 6 m

                                                                   =        1591

                                                                             ====

                                                                   =        2043

                                                                           ====

Moratorium period for interest for one year

From 23.01.04 to 23.01.05

Account closed on 13.02.2006

So interest from 23.01.2005 to 13.02.2006

For 10,103 at 10.5%                                      =  1060.82

Interest for 2742 from 23.01.2005

To 13.02.2006 at 11 %                                   =  301.62

                                                                      =  1362.42

                                                                         ========

So from the above discussion the

Complainant is liable to pay the following

Amount ie

1. Principal amount                                    = 12845

2.  Interest for the amount from

     29.02.1989 to 23.06.1992                     =  4541

3.  Interest from 23.06.1992 to

     29.12.2001                                            =  12944

4.  Interest from 29.12.2001 to

     23.01.2004                                            =  2043

5.  Interest from 23.01.05 to

     13.02.2006                                            =  1362.42

Total                     =  33,735

                                ======

But as per Ext.A6 the complainant has paid `66,649.  The complainant is entitled to waiver of penal interest.

          So it is seen that the actual amount payable by the complainant is `33,735.  So the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount from the opposite party after re-opening the closed loan account No.M.T.R.C.R 141.  The complainant is entitled to get 6% interest upon the balance amount.  So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party  and hence they are bound to re-open the loan account and to account the details as shown in the order and to issue a detailed account statement to the complainant showing actual amount legally due and to return the balance amount with 6% interest from 13.02.2006 till realization of the amount with `1,000 as cost of the proceedings and order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complainant allowed directing the opposite party to re-open the closed loan account No.MTRCR 141 and to account and prepare calculation statement as shown in the body of the order and to issue a copy of the same to the complainant along with balance amount of ` 32,914 with 6% interest from 13.02.2006 till realization with ` 1,000 as cost of the proceedings, within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which complainant can 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 Mortgage deed executed by the complainant.

A2.  Copy of receipt dated 26.02.1985.

A2(1).  Copy of receipt dated 28.02.1986.           

A2(2).  Copy of receipt dated 24.02.1987.        

A2(3).  Copy of receipt dated 26.02.1988.

A2(4).  Copy of receipt dated 29.02.1989.

A3.  Copy of the notice issued by Sale officer.

A4.  Copy of the foreclosure notice.

A5. Copy of Sale Proclamation issued by Sale officer.

A6.  Receipt dated 13.02.2006.

A7.  Notice dated 12.12.05.

A8.  Copy of complaint submitted by complainant to Joint Registrar, 

       Kannur.

A9.  Letter dated 19.12.05.

A10. Certified copy of the ledger extract pertaining to loan No.141.

A11. Copy of the letter sent by complainants to 1^st OP dated 09.03.06.

A12. Reply dated 20.03.2006.

A13. News paper notice.

A14. News paper report.

A15. Affidavit of 1^st OP.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  Narayanan P.

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT