Kerala

Idukki

CC/173/2020

Sijo joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aero Agency - Opp.Party(s)

Adv: shiji Joseph

11 Mar 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 9.11.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  7^th  Day of  March,  2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

                                                       CC NO.153/2021

Between

Complainant                                 :   1. Praveen Kuriachen,

                                                                  Puthenpurackal House

                                                                  Manipara P.O.

                                                                Attikalam, Kanjikuzhi Village

                                                                  Idukki District.

2. Subaitha kabeer,

Madoliyil house,

Manipara P.O.,

Attikalam, Kanjikuzhi Village.

3. Valsa mathew,

Nedumpurathu house,

Manipara P.O.,

Attikalam, kanjikuzhi Village

       (All by Adv: K.B. Selvam)

And

Opposite Parties                               : 1. The Deputy General Manager,

                                                                     Kerala State Co-operative Bank,

                                                                     (Former Idukki District

Co-operative  Bank)

            Idukki.

2. The Manager,

                                                                     Kerala State Co-operative Bank,

                                                (Former IDCB Kanjikuzhi Branch)

                                                                   Idukki.

  (Both by Adv:  C.K. Babu)

O R D E R 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

This  complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).   Complaint averments are briefly discussed here under :

 

2.   Complainants are agricultural labourers.  1^st opposite party is Deputy Manager of Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Idukki Village and 2^nd opposite party is

(cont....2)

- 2 -

Manager of Kanjikuzhi branch of same bank.  Complainants had taken cattle loan from opposite parties on 23/08/2018 and 28/03/2018. Owing to flood and Covid 19 situation, they could not pay the loan installments.  Loan amount was entirely utilized by them for agricultural purposes.  During the times of pandemic, Government had declared moratorium for all loans.  However, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have sent demand notices for recovery of loan amount and dues.  Though complainants had informed 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties that they are willing to repay the loan amount in stages, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not responded to the request made by them. In the meanwhile, complainants have received summons from ARC in case filed by opposite parties for recovering loan dues, which is pending for written statement On 05/11/2020, 1st and 2nd opposite parties had approached the complainants and threatened that if entire loan amount is not paid, steps will be taken to recover the dues by proceeding against their property without any further notice.  Complainants were also informed that their CIBIL score will be lowered.  Complainants have suffered mental agony and irreparable loss owing to aforesaid acts of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  There is deficiency in service on their part.  Hence complainant prays for a direction against 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to grant more time to complainants for repaying dues and to restrain them from initiating recovery proceedings against complainants. they also pray for Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs. 

 

3. Complaint was taken on file and upon notice, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have appeared. 2^nd opposite party has filed joint written version. No separate version is filed by 1^st opposite party. Their contentions are briefly discussed here under :

                                                                                                  

4.  According to 1st opposite party, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  There is no deficiency in service.  No cause of action is there to sustain the complaint.  Complainants have availed loans of Rs.1.9 lakhs each on 03/09/2016. These loans were renewed on 28/03/2018 as special ordinary loans. All loans have become NPA since 30/06/2018. as per RBI Covid Regulatory Guidance , standard loans as on 29/02/2020 alone are eligible for moratorium.

There is no moratorium for this loan.  Personal requests and issuance of notices are usual procedures connected with recovery of arrears.  Despite repeated notices, complainants have not paid the dues. Hence bank had initiated arbitration proceedings and arbitration awards have been passed against 1^st and 3^rd complainant. After filing of written version by 2^nd opposite party, case was posted for evidence, after given sufficient opportunity to both sides for taking steps.  Though repeated opportunities were  availed by complainant, no evidence was tendered by him.  Able counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that, since there is no evidence from the side of complainant, opposite parties are not tendering any oral evidence.  Upon

(cont....3)

- 3 -

his recquest, account extract produced was marked as R1. Evidence was closed.  Complainants or their counsel has not filed notes or addressed arguments, though repeated opportunities were given. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 and 2 was heard.  Now Points  which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether complainants are entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint ?

2)  Order as to costs ?

 

5.  Point No.1 :

 

We have gone through the complaint and copy of summons received by complainants issued by Joint registrar of co-operative societies, which is the designated forum as per law for realisation of dues by a registered co-operative society against defaulter/members, in the proceedings initiated there by opposite party bank for recovery of loan dues. Such proceedings cannot be termed as illegal. There is nothing to show that complainants are entitled for more time to repay dues. Complainants have not produced anything to show that moratorium given by State is applicable to loan availed by them. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Prayer for reduction in rate of interest is only humanitarian in nature and not based on any legal right. Therefore, we find that complainants are not entitled for any reliefs claimed in this case. Point is answered accordingly. 

         

6.  Point No.2 :

 

          In the result, we find that this complaint is only to be dismissed.  We find no reason for deviating from the rule of costs following the events.  This complaint is dismissed with cost of  Rs.2,000/- in total payable by the complainants to the Bank represented by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Interim Injunction / Stay granted shall stand vacated. 

 

                        Pronounced by this Commission on this the  ^7th  day of March, 2022

 

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

  SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER 

 

 

Appendix  :   Nil.

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT