Kerala

Idukki

CC/104/2020

George - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Adv:K M Sanu

21 Jul 2022

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING :  25.8.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  21^st  day of   July,  2022

Present :

                   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.104/2020

     Between

Complainant                               :   George, S/o. Joseph,

                                                               Pravidakunnel House,          

                                                              Avoli P.O.,

                                                              Muvattupuzha.

   (By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

        And

Opposite Party                                   :   The Manager,

                                                               Bank of Baroda,

                                                               AM Road, Kothamangalam

                                                               Pin – 686 691.

    (By Advs: Saijo Hassan,

Benoj C. Augustin & Antony P.K.)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

                1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are briefly discussed hereunder :

         

          Complainant is an agriculturist.  He is involved in cultivating plantain and pineapples in his own property and another property leased out to him by others.  In connection with his agricultural operations, complainant had availed a loan of Rs.35 lakhs as per his Kisan Credit Card (KCC) on 15.12.2017 from the bank represented by opposite parties.  His property having an extent of 65 cents of land in Sy. No.22/7 of Kumaramangalam Village, was given as collateral for the said loan.  Subsequently, due to unexpected flood, entire crop was destroyed and complainant was unable to repay the loan.  Presently, an amount of Rs.42,95,827/- is outstanding towards the loan.  Complainant contends that he is not liable to pay                                                                                                     (cont….2)

• 2  -

the amount shown as outstanding, since excess interest and penal interest was charged upon his loan.  He would say that moratorium benefits declared by the Government and Reserve Bank of India during floods of 2018 and subsequently
during Covid 19 lock down period were also denied to him.  Complainant now understands that opposite party is intending to proceed against his property given as collateral for recovering the outstanding loan dues.  He would submit that such a recovery is illegal, since excess interest has been charged and also for the reason that moratorium benefits were not given to him.  According to him, these acts on the part of opposite party constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Complainant seeks a direction against opposite party for rescheduling of the loan terms and also for compensation of Rs.1 lakh for deficiency in service.  He has also prayed for Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

 

          2. Opposite party had entered appearance and filed written version.  Its contentions are briefly narrated hereunder :

 

          According to opposite party, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as no relief under Section 14 can be granted in this case.  Opposite party admits that complainant had availed an amount of Rs.35,000/- as per Baroda Kisan Credit Card vide loan account No.25070500001773, on 15.12.2017, after executing necessary documents.  Credit facility was availed for cultivation of pine apple in 21.86 acres of leased agricultural land.  Complainant had executed a document hypothecating the standing crops and also had created equitable mortgage by depositing title deed of his property having an extent of 65 cents in Sy. No.22/7, Block 9 of Kumaramangalm Village covered by sale deed No.1258/09 of Thodupuzha S.R.O..  Apart from this, complainant had availed another loan of Rs.35 lakhs on the same day in the name of his wife for cultivation of pine apple in a different property leased out by him.  He is personal guarantor for the loan and had created an equitable mortgage for the said 65 cents of property in connection with the 2^nd loan also.  Thereafter on 21.12.2017, yet another amount of Rs.35 lakhs was availed in the name of Mr. James Jacob, kinsman of complainant for pine apple cultivation in leased property.  Repayment of these 2 loans, is also in arrears.  An amount of Rs.43,32,252.90 and Rs.42,89,002/- is due from the loan granted to his wife and to James Jacob respectively.  Though the complainant had admitted that he had harvested first crop in 2018 and that crop had perished, these submissions are incorrect.  The crop was not lost.  Complainant had sold the crop and pocketed the proceeds.   He  had, despite  having  sold  the  crop,  not  cared  to make remittance                                                                                                     (cont…3)

• 3  -

towards loan availed by him.  It is incorrect to say that excess interest and penal interest were charged.  Interest and additional interest were charged in accordance with hypothecation cum loan agreement executed by complainant.  Complainant is not entitled for moratorium benefits, as this benefits are only applicable to those loan accounts which are regular as on the date prescribed for claiming the benefit.  Loan account of complainant was in default from as early as 2018.  Moratorium benefits were declared by the Government in 2020.  Despite repeated requests by the bank, complainant had not cared to renew the loan documents upon expiry of loan period.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.  Complainant contains baseless allegations and is to be dismissed with costs.

 

          3. After filing of written version, case was posted for evidence, after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides to take steps.  Proceedings of the case reveal that it was repeatedly adjourned at the instance of complainant for evidence.  It was lastly posted for evidence on 5.7.2022.  On that date also complainant was absent.  No steps were taken by him.  His counsel had reported no instructions.  Opposite party was also absent on that date.  No evidence was adduced by both sides, nor were any contentions addressed.  Hence case was taken for orders.

 

          Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of opposite party in the matter of loan availed by complainant from it ?

2)  Whether opposite party had dealt with the complainant in an unfair manner ?

3)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

4)  Reliefs and costs ?

 

4. Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

 

          First contention advanced from the side of opposite party is with regard to maintainability of complaint.  According to opposite party, 1^st relief claimed cannot be granted under Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986.  These contentions are unsustainable.  Complaint was filed on 25.8.2020.  Prior to it, new Act of 2019 had come fully into force on 23.7.2020.  As per the New Act, definition of term ‘service’ given under Section 2(42) is all inclusive had includes provision of facilities in connection with banking also.  Section 39(1) of the New Act gives jurisdiction to district Commissions to pass directions which would include directions sought for, in the present complaint also.  Such a direction would come within the ambit of Section 39(1) of aforesaid Act.                (cont…4)

• 4  -

          However, there is substance in the contention advanced that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against opposite parties as such.  Along with complaint, complainant has produced a lawyer notice issued to him by opposite party.  Opposite party had submitted 4 documents along with written version.  1^st one is copy of loan sanction letter.  2^nd one is copy of composite hypothecation agreement.  3^rd one is copy of registered notice sent by opposite party to complainant and other 2 borrowers and 4^th document is copy of Covid 19 Regulatory package dated 17.4.2020, issued by RBI.  Upon going through the documents produced from the side of opposite party, we find that interest was charged only at MCRL rates.  Agreement also contains provision for charging additional interest in case of default.  There is nothing to show that interest claimed is in excess or against the loan document executed by complainant.  Covid 19 Regulatory package was declared by RBI in April 2020. No evidence was let in to show that moratorium benefits were extended to similar loans during floods of 2018 either. Besides such benefits are to be claimed and complainant has no case of having applied for the same.  Contentions advanced by opposite party that only regular accounts which remains standard will be entitled for moratorium benefits are substantial.  There is no evidence to show that there is any deficiency in service or that unfair trade practice had taken place as alleged by complainant.  Therefore, we find that complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed for, in the complaint.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly. 

 

5.  Point No.4:

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.

 

                         Pronounced by this Commission on this the   21^st  day of July, 2022

Sd/-                     

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                             Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                   Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

       Forwarded by Order,

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRA