Kerala

Idukki

CC/112/2018

Shaju Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager South Malabar Grameen Bank - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 4.6.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.112/2018

Between

Complainant : Shaju Mathew,

Vadakkel House,

Karimannoor P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

And

Opposite Party : The Branch Manager,

South Malabar Gramin Bank,

Karimannoor.

(By Advs: Biju Mathew & K.M. Sanu)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant availed a vehicle loan from opposite party bank on 21.6.2011 and agreed to pay it within 7 years as monthly instalments. While so, the loan was in arrears in the year 2015, the complainant remitted the arrears loan amount along with interest to the bank. Against the default in payment, opposite party approached the Munsiff Court, Muttam and filed a civil suit against the complainant. When the complainant received the summons from the Court, he approached the opposite party bank at that time opposite party manager directed him to give the summons to the manager and not to appear before the Court. When the complainant approached the opposite party bank on 20.5.2016 for closing the loan, the opposite party bank demanded Rs.23000/- as additional charges. At that time, the complainant demanded the statement of account, but the opposite party bank was reluctant to issue it. Under this circumstances, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, complainant filed this petition seeking relief to direct the opposite party to close the loan by excepting the additional amount that demanded by the opposite party and also direct the opposite party to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed reply version challenging the maintainability of the complaint as a primary issue. In their

(cont....2)

- 2 -

version, opposite party further contended that the complainant availed the vehicle loan of Rs.2,65,000/- but he was not prompt in repaying it and the loan became NPA on 20.2.2015. The opposite party made repeated demand to repay the loan, but the complainant failed to do so. Hence as a last resort, opposite party filed a civil suit before the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha, as OS 371/15. This suit was decreed and opposite party filed execution proceedings before the court. After the passing of decree, the complainant remitted most part of the decree amount. As on 11.7.2008, an amount of Rs.23,700/- was outstanding in the decree debt. In the decree, the Munsiff Court allowed cost of Rs.21,445/- in favour of the opposite party. The complainant instead of paying the remaining decree amount, filed this complaint with the ulterior motive to avoid further payment.

 

We have heard both the parties relating to the maintainability of the complaint.

 

The POINT :- The complainant in this petition specifically admitted that a civil suit is pending before the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha. On getting information about the decree in that suit, complainant remitted almost all the amount. Now opposite party is demanding Rs.23,700/- as the part of the decree amount. The matter of the civil suit and its decree are not challenged by the complainant. Since the matter is already decided by a competent Court before filing this complaint, this Forum is having no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

 

Under the above circumstances, the petition for maintainability allowed on the ground that the matter is already decided by the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha.

 

Hence the complaint dismissed. No order to cost.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of May, 2019

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT