KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 698/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 24.06.2019
(Against the Order in C.C. 111/2014 of CDRF, Malappuram)
PRESENT :
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Manager, Canara Bank, Perinthalmanna Branch.
(By Adv. E. Sulfickar)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Abdurahimankutty K.P, Karuparamban House, Pang Chendi (via) Kolathur, Malappuram-679 338
JUDGMENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
The appellant is the opposite party in C.C. No. 111/2014 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram and the respondent is the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the opposite party bank and due to the financial difficulties the complainant could not repay the loan amount promptly. Thus Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the complainant and to that effect he received a notice from Revenue Recovery Tahsildar on 01.01.2013 directing him to participate in the Revenue Recovery Mela scheduled to be conducted in the Taluk Office, Perintalmanna on 15.01.2013. He was also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- on or before 17.01.2013 and the remaining amount of Rs. 23,000/- before 25.03.2013. He was also intimated that if those amounts were paid off his liability would be wiped off. Thus the complainant remitted Rs. 2,000/- on 17.01.2013 and Rs. 23,000/- on 14.03.2013 and another amount of Rs. 350/- on the same day that is on 14.03.2013. Suppressing these materials the opposite party sent a notice to complainant on 02.04.2013 demanding Rs. 21,488/- together with the interest of Rs. 2,493/-. On getting this notice the complainant informed the opposite party in writing about discharging his liability by remitting the amount in the Revenue Recovery Mela. But again on 04.09.2013 the opposite party sent another notice showing that the complainant has a liability of Rs. 25,000/- and complainant was also informed that an adalath was scheduled to be conducted on 13.09.2013 in the circle office of Canara Bank at Calicut. Again complainant convinced the opposite party that the liability of the complainant is already wiped off and realizing the claim of complainant the opposite party told him that his liability towards the bank is discharged. Again on 16.12.2013 another notice was received by complainant from the opposite party showing that another Recovery Camp is scheduled to be conducted on 19.12.2013 in the office of the bank at Perintalmanna and also directing the complainant to pay Rs. 21,488/- towards principal amount and Rs. 2,493/- towards interest. Again complainant attended the meeting and convinced the Manager about the facts. On 26.02.2014 again a notice was received by complainant from Perintalmanna Taluk Legal Service Authority directing him to attend the Adalath conducted therein. Thus the opposite party is repeatedly sending notice to complainant demanding the loan amount and thereby ridiculing him before the public. Thus the complainant suffered severe mental agony and financial loss on account of the abusive acts of the opposite party. Thus the act of the opposite party reveals the deficiency of service rendered by the bank. Hence this complaint is filed for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 99,999/- as compensation for mental agony together with the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
3. The opposite party filed version contending as follows: It is true that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the bank. The loan was availed by him on 11.01.2008. Towards the loan amount complainant paid Rs. 2,000/- on 17.01.2013, Rs. 23,000/- on 14.03.2013 and Rs. 350/- on 14.03.2013. But the outstanding balance of loan amount to be paid by the complainant as on 17.01.2013 was Rs. 43,311/-. Though Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the complainant, the notices sent to him had not been served on him. Since liability of the complainant is not wiped off the opposite party is entitled to take action against him. After availing loan, complainant did not make any payment promptly. So he would come under the category of defaulters and he cannot claim any benefit available to non-defaulters. No settlement is arrived at between complainant and opposite party in the Adalath and thus the liability of the complainant is not closed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thus they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and Exts. A1 to A9 and Ext. B1 were marked before the District Forum.
5. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant and opposite party, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party/appellant filed this appeal. The finding of the District Forum is on the basis of Ext. A1 notice. The opposite party had initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant and as a result Ext. A1 notice was issued by Revenue Recovery Tahsildar to the complainant. In that notice the liability of the complainant was shown as Rs. 44,696/-. It is also stated in the notice that the bank had decided to give concessions to those debtors who are voluntarily paying the arrears and for that purpose Revenue Recovery Mela is organized. Below this notice it has been written using pen under the heading ‘OTS’ that Rs. 2,000/- should be paid on or before 17.01.2013 and the balance amount of Rs. 23,000/-on or before 25.03.2013 plus revenue recovery charges. The total amount to be paid by the complainant towards arrears is shown as Rs. 25,000/-. On the basis of this endorsement the complainant had paid Rs. 2,000/- on 17.01.2013 as per Ext. A2 receipt and Rs. 23,000/- on 14.03.2013 as per Ext. A3 receipt and Rs. 350/- as revenue recovery charges by Ext. A4 receipt. Thus according to the complainant he had complied with the directions shown in Ext. A1 and thus his liability is wiped off by paying the amount as directed. We also find that the finding of the District Forum is correct as per these documents. The complainant had paid the dues according to the condition of the settlement. Thereafter the opposite party has no right to claim any amount from the complainant as loan dues. We also concur with the finding of the District Forum that issuing repeated notices to a customer of the bank even after discharging the liability definitely comes under the category of deficiency of service. The act of the opposite party definitely caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant.
6. In this case deficiency of service occurred from the side of the appellant/opposite party bank and the respondent/complainant is entitled to get compensation from the appellant/opposite party. But the amount of compensation ordered by the District Forum is very high as far as the facts and circumstances of the case are concerned. Hence we deem it appropriate to allow a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the appellant/opposite party bank instead of Rs. 50,000/- ordered by the District Forum. With this modification the Order of the District Forum is upheld. The cost ordered is just and reasonable and hence no interference is called for regarding that.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, and the Order passed by the District Forum is modified, by reducing the compensation to Rs. 10,000/-.
The respondent/complainant is permitted to obtain release of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal, on proper application, to be adjusted towards the amount of compensation and cost ordered, as above. Release the balance amount to the appellant, on proper application.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
