SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

                This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  for an order directing  the OP’s to deduct Rs.37000/- with interest in the loan of the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- as mental agony of the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost  for the deficiency of service on  their part.

The brief of the complaint :

  The complainant had availed a Kisan Credit card loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from OP’s bank in his A/c No. 40293131001024 on 21/6/2016.  The loan was sanctioned on the annual interest rate of 4% .  As per the terms of the  agreement the amount has to be  brought in to the  credit  annually and the facility is available for a period of 3 years also.  On 7/1/2017 the complainant has remitted  Rs.62,000/- in 1^st OP/s bank and the  bank entered credit transaction in the complainant’s pass book and  review the loan also.  Then the complainant approached OP’s bank on 1/1/2018 and 3/1/2018 .  On 3/1/2018 the complainant filed application for review the KCC loan.  Then OPs 1&4 permitted the complainant to renew the loan on 3/1/2018.  But the 4^th OP has not entered the debit transaction in computer system on 7/1/2017 only recorded the credit transaction.  The complainant has lost Rs.37,000/- with interest  only due to the negligence of the OP’s.  So the complainant has lost the incentive interest subsidy for repayment.  The act of OP’s the complainant caused much mental agony  and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.   Hence the complaint.

       After  filing the  complaint  notice issued to all OP’s . After receiving  notice all  OP’s entered before the commission and  filed their written version separately . OPs 1 to 4  contended that in the KCC loan scheme the borrower has to remit the entire interest with principal amount within one year from the date of disbursement of the amount.  Then only the borrower would be entitled to get the interest subvention .  Moreover they contended that the complainant has availed the loan on 21/1/2016 and he was bound to repay  by interest and the principal amount before  20/1/2017.  But  the complainant remitted only Rs.62,000/- on 7/1/2017.  Since he has not remitted the entire amount due(principal amount with interest) within the stipulated period of one year he  was not eligible to  get the incentive interest subsidy for prompt repayment.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief sought in the complaint.   There is no  deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.  Then the complaint may be dismissed.

      On the basis  of the rival contentions by the pleadings the  following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and  Exts. A1 to A5 were marked . On OP’s side DW1 was examined, no documents   marked.

   Both sides argued the matter and  OP’s  filed argument note also.

Issue No.1: 

                The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his  chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  He was cross examined as PW1 by OP’s .  The documents Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on his part to substantiate his case.  According to the complainant he has availed  a KCC loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 21/1/2016 from  1^st OP bank.  Then the complainant  has remitted Rs.62,000/- in  1^st OP’s bank on 7/1/2017.  But the OP’s bank  only credited the amount in the complainant’s KCC A/c No.40493131001024, that shown  in Ext.A1(page No.2) dtd.7/1/2017.  No debit transaction is recorded.  But in Ext.A1(page No.3) is  3/1/2018 the credit transaction and debit transaction is entered.  So it is clear that the OP’s omitted to enter the debit transaction in complainant’s account and pass book.  In Ext.A2 is the written letter send by complainant to 1^st OP dtd.3/1/2018.  In Ext.A3 is the reply letter issued by OP’s to complainant dtd.2/3/2018.  In Ext.A4 is the KCC Review Format, declaration for review of KCC limits.  KCC A/c No.40493131001024 dtd.21/1/2016 this KCC is valid for 5 years and renewable after 5 years, but subject to review by the branch every year.  Moreover, the Review/ Remarks of the branch “ we have interviewed  the  loanee and we are satisfied about the declaration furnished above.  There are no adverse remarks on the conduct of the account and there are no over dues in the loan account  accordingly the loan account is reviewed.  In Ext.A4 , OPs 1&4 also signed the format and reviewed dtd.7/1/2017.  In Ext.A5 also the loan account is reviewed dtd.3/1/2018.  In the evidence of PW1 who deposed that “ വായ്പാ കാലാവധിക്കുള്ളിൽ മുതലും പലിശയും നിങ്ങൾ ബാങ്കിൽ അടച്ചു എന്ന വാദം എടുക്കുന്നുണ്ടോ? ഉണ്ട്. പണം അടച്ച receipt കൾ ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ? ഉണ്ട്. Form ആയിട്ട് ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്(Ext.A4). എത്ര തുക അടച്ചപ്പോഴാണ് ഈ form കിട്ടിയത്? 62,000/-രൂപ അടച്ചപ്പോഴാണ്.  OP.NO.1 പറയുന്നു നിങ്ങൾ ഒരു വർഷത്തിനുള്ളിൽ മുതലും പലിശയും ചേർത്ത് അടച്ചിട്ടില്ല എന്ന്? അതേ bank തന്നെയാണ് loan പുതുക്കിയ form എനിക്ക് തന്നത്. Moreover in the evidence  of DW1 he deposed that “62,000/-  രൂപ പരാതിക്കാരൻ അടച്ചത് 7/1/17 ന്  മുതലും പലിശയും കൂടി അടച്ച തുകയാണ്? അതെ. ആ തുക credit transaction ആയിട്ടാണ് പരാതിക്കാരന്ർറെ pass bookൽ  കാണിച്ചത്? അതെ.  അന്ന് debit transaction   പരാതിക്കാരന്ർറെ pass bookൽ  രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയിരുന്നില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു? ശരിയാണ് .  So the complainant is not  obtained the incentive interest subsidy.  So we hold that the OP’s are directly bound to redressal the  grievance caused to the complainant.  So there is   deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.   Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

    As discussed above the complainant remitted Rs.62,000/- on 7/1/2017.  But the OP’s bank only credited the amount in the complainant’s account and no debit transaction is recorded.  So the complainant is not obtained the incentive interest subsidy.  So the OP’s are liable to refund Rs.37,000/- with interest to the complainant’s KCC Account.  Therefore we hold that the OP’s are liable to pay Rs.37,000/- with interest to the complainant’s KCC Account along with Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.  Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered .

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the  opposite parties 1 to 4  jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of  Rs.37,000/- with interest already obtained from the complainant’s KCC loan  Account along with Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of  Rs.37,000/- with interest carries 12% interest per annum  from the date of order till realization.    Failing which the  complainant is at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- Pass book  copy dtd.21/1/2016

A2&A3- Copy of letter issued by 1^st OP to complainant dtd.3/1/2018 , 2/3/2018

A4&A5- Copy of KCC review format dtd.7/1/17, 3/1/18

PW1- Haris.A- Complainant

DW1-Hari.M.P-1^st OP

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                   Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR