BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.237/2008

Between

Complainant : K.G. George, S/o K.V. George,

Kavalakkattu House,

Thankamani P.O.

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Joseph Pathalil)

And

Opposite Party : The Branch Manager,

Kerala Financial Corporation Limited.,

Kattappana Branch, Kattappana P.O.

Idukki District.

(By Adv: V.C. Sebastian)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.3,55,000 in the year 1997 from the Kerala State Financial Corporation for purchasing a Jeep. Due to reasons beyond the controll of the petitioner, could not able to repay the loan as agreed. Even though the complainant has remitted a total sum of Rs.6,43,442/- up to the month of December 2007 against the original loan of Rs.3,55,000/-, Revenue Recovery proceedings where initiated for recovering the balance amount. Therefore the petitioner has submitted an application for one time settlement scheme, but was rejected by the 1st opposite party. Then the complainant approached the Honourable High Court of Kerala by filing writ-petition W.P.(C) No.35524/2007. The Honourable High Court of Kerala permitted the petitioner to move an application seeking one time settlement accompanied by a deposit of Rs.35,000/-. The Honourable High Court also ordered the opposite party after hearing the petitioner the repayment schedule must be fixed for the balance amount. The petitioner has remitted Rs.35,000/- on 21-12-2007 within the time prescribed by the Honourable High Court in Judgement. On 21-12-2007 the petitioner has submitted a representation before the Managing Director, Kerala State Financial Corporation requesting the corporation to settle the liability under the one time settlement scheme. But the opposite party has not submitted the representation before the M.D as directed by the Honourable High Court, till date, the petitioner has not issued with any repayment schedule or any communication quantifying the amount payable by the petitioner. On 28-8-08 a registered letter was issued by the opposite party to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs.2,31,121/- within a week from the date of receipt of the notice. So this petition is filed for giving direction against the opposite parties to settle the loan amount as per the direction of the Honourable High Court and also for such other damages.
 

2. The opposite party filed the written version and admitted that the loan of Rs.3.55 lakhs was sanctioned in the year 1997. The loan was to be repaid within the period of 5 year together with interest 17.5% per annum. Amount payable was of monthly with 2% penal interest for default. Accepting the terms and agreements, the complainant entered into the contractual agreement with the opposite party and after complying all legal formalities, the complainant availed the loan. Due to default in payment, the opposite party had given re-schedulement facility to the complainant by extending the repayment period to two and half more years from 01-03-2000 to 01-10-2002. Due to delay in payment of loan, the opposite party initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant. So the complainant filed writ-petition before the Honourable High Court challenging the Revenue Recovery Proceedings. A branch leavel screening committee for D.T.S scheme met on 2008 and analysed the proposel in detail. At that time the principal arrear was 1.4 lakhs, interest was .50 lakhs. Penal interest was .5 lakhs. In the said meeting the complainant was also presented negotiation. Another committee was held on 29.02.08 approved the recommentation of waver of 100% penal interest. The Board of directors of corporation also rectified the account of the Managing Director in its meeting held on 14.03.08. This matter was also communicated to the complainant on vide letter dated 29.03.08. Since the complainant failed to remite the O.T.S amount before 30.04.08, one week time was also given to the complainant. The complainant do not made a complaint to the opposite party corporation regarding this. If the complainant is ready to settle the account under O.T.S by enjoying the benefit of 100% waver of penal interest amount 49,000/-. The opposite party is even now ready to extent time for remittance.
 

3. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R5 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
 

4. The point for consideration is wheter there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

5. The POINT:- Complainant availed loan from the opposite party, an amount of Rs.3.55 lakhs for the purchase of a Jeep. The loan became default and he was not able to repay the same. Revenue Recovery Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. So the complainant approached the Honourable High Court against the opposite party. The petitioner was examined as PW1. Once the loan was re-scheduled as per the direction of the Manager, when it became default. The opposite party issued a letter requesting the complainant to settle the account within 30 days and waver of Rs.49,000/- was given to the complainant which was the penal interest. But the order from the Honourable High Court was to settle the entire loan. A copy of the Judgement of the Honourable High Court is marked as Ext.P1. But the opposite party was not ready to comply the order of the Honourable High Court. Two letters received by the opposite party on 28.03.08 and 29.03.08. As per the order of the Honourable High Court the complainant remitted Rs.35,000/- on 21.12.07 to the opposite party and submitted a representation before the Managing Director, Kerala Finance Corporation. Opposite party never issued the repayment schedule as per the order of the Honourable High Court. Only issued the registered letter dated 28.08.08 demanding the remitance of an amount of Rs.2,31,121/- within a week from the date of receipt of the notice. No further communication was given to the complainant. The Assistant Manager of the opposite party is examined as DW1. DW1 deposed that OTS facility was given to the complainant as per the order of the Honourable High Court. The opposite party has given the reduction of Rs.49,000/- , penal interest as per the facility. This was done by the meeting conducted in the head office by the Board of Directors. The matter was duly informed to the complainant through registered letter and also through Telephone. But the complainant did not turn up. So there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The only dispute is that whether the opposite party acted upon the order of the Honourable High Court of Kerala. But the matter was once decided by the Honourable High Court of Kerala and a direction was given to the opposite parties about the repayment of loan. So we think it is not proper to consider the same for deficiency in service.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2009.

Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - George K.S.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - K.G. George.

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Copy of Order from the High Court of Kerala, dated 04.12.2007.

Ext.P2 - Copy of receipt dated 21.12.2007.

Ext.P3 - Copy of Application dated 21.12.2007.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Copy of Letter dated 29.03.2008.

Ext.R2 - Copy of Letter dated 28.08.2008.

Ext.R3 - AD card

Ext.R4 - Copy of Minutes of the Committee, dated 23.01.2008.

Ext.R5 - Copy of the Branch Level O.T.S Committee held on 23.01.2008