DATE OF FILING :30/03/17
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of January 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 67/17
Between
Complainant : 1 . P.K.Sabu,
Punnathanathu House,
Padamukham P.O.,
Idukki -685 604
2 . Karunakaran,
Punnathanathu House,
Padamukham P.O.,
Idukki -685 604
And
Opposite Party : 1 . The Branch Manager,
Federal Bank Limited,
Thopramkudy P.O.,
Idukki – 685 609
2 . The General Manager,
Rural Planing and Credit Department
Reserve Bank of India,
Thiruvananthapuram P.O.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that,
Complainants availed an agriculture loan from the first opposite party bank and they failed to remit the loan instalments regularly due to fall in agriculture. Hence as per the request of the complainant the opposite party re-scheduled the existing loan. At the time of re-schedule the first opposite party charged excessive interest against the norms of RBI. The first opposite party failed to provide the copy of statement of account as demanded by the complainant. The first opposite party failed to accounted the amount in the loan account which was remitted by the complainant. Thereby caused much financial loss and difficulties to the complainant.
(Cont....2)
-2-
On notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version. Along with reply version the first opposite party filed a petition challenging the maintainabily of the complaint. Complainant filed detailed objection to the interim application
In their petition the first opposite party contended that the complainant and his father failed to remit the loan amount and violated the norms and condition of the loan agreement. Hence the loan account of the first complainant was classified as NPA and the first opposite party filed a complaint such as OS 95/15 before the Honourable Munsif Court, Idukki for recovery of the loan amount together with interest as per the terms of the loan agreement. Summons to the complainant was duly served. After giving sufficient opportunity while the case posted for evidence, the complainant approached the opposite party and settled the matter. Even if they have any dispute regarding interest or terms, they ought to be challenged before the competent Forum at the earliest opportunity. It was clearly held that where the subject matter of the complaint and the civil suit are same and identified the matter being sub-judice, the Forum lacking jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Opposite party further contended that the complainant itself is bad by res judicata, since the matter in issue is already decided by the competent Civil Court.
At the same time the complainant/ respondent in the IA specifically stated that even though the first opposite party saying some details regarding the civil suit filed against the complainant they are unaware of that and they have not received any notice from any Civil Court as alleged by the opposite party/petitioner in the IA. More over no documentary evidence is produced by them to substantiate this claim. Hence the maintainability petition has no legal footing and is liable to be dismissed.
Heard both sides,
On going through the point that argued by the learned counsels and the pleading of the petition and the objection it is seen that petitioner/opposite party is not produced any documentary evidence to convince the Forum that whether there was a civil case and whether the subject matter is same and whether it is settled by the parties as stated in the petition. Without having
(Cont....3)
-3-
sufficient materials to prove the contention in the IA, forum is not in a position to allow the petition for challenging maintainability.
On the basis of the above discussion petition challenging the maintainability is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2018
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
