CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 04/08/2012
CC / 148 / 2012
1. Kandamuthan, S/o.Veemban,
Puthan Veedu, Valara Post, Nattukal,
Valiyavallampathi Village,
Chittur Taluk.
2. Karthyani, W/o.Kandamuthan
-do - Complainants
3. K.Suresh, S/o.Kandamuthan
-do-
(By Adv.R.Gangadharan)
Vs
Branch Manager,
Dhanalakshmi Bank (Ltd) - Opposite party
Chittur Branch, Chittur
O R D E R
BY SMT.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Brief case of the complainant:-
Complainants availed an agricultural loan of Rs.50,000/- each from opposite party. Total loan availed by all the complainants amounts Rs.1,50,000/-. As per the Vidharbha Package Scheme introduced by the Central Government, there was a direction to waive interest including the penal interest. Complainants paid Rs.80,000/- towards the loan amount on 21/07/2006 under the impression that opposite party would have waived the interest. Hence according to the complainant Rs.70,000/- is the balance amount. Later as per the Debt Relief Scheme 2008, complainant was entitled for waiver of the agricultural loan. Complainant was under the impression that opposite party would have waived his debt. Complainant requested for the statement and documents containing the details of persons whose debt has been waived, under Right to Information Act, for which opposite party did not sent any reply. Later on 17/06/2008, opposite party has sent a notice for which reply has been sent stating true facts. Further opposite party has filed a case before Hon'ble Sub Court, Palakkad against the complainant where in it was stated that loan availed by the complainants were a business loan. Later it was admitted that the loans were agricultural one. Complaint was ordered in favour of opposite party. The act of opposite party in treating the agricultural loan as business loan and not providing proper service in relation to the debt refund etc. amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Hence complainant filed with a prayer to declare the claim made by opposite party for Rs.1,15,755/- as per their undated notice as illegal.
Interim Application also filed for condoning the delay in filing of the complaint in time. The reason stated is the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Sub Court. The said case was disposed of in the year 03/08/2011 only. Further case was also pending under SARFASI Act etc.
Heard complainant. On going through the complaint it is understood that loan was taken in the year 2002. According to the complainants they were entitled for waiver under the Debt Relief Scheme 2008. Complainants case is that as there was a case pending before Hon'ble Sub Court and SARFASI Act, he could not file the complaint in time. The grievance of the complainant that opposite party treated his agricultural loan as business loan and proceeded in that manner was aware to the complainant in the year 2008 itself. Eventhough case is pending for realization of the debt amount there is no bar for filing case before the forum for deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. So the complaint has to be filed in the year 2010 itself. Complaint is seen filed on 4/8/12. As per Sec.24(A) complaint should be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. The cause of the action for the complaint is seen lastly aroused in the year 2008, (The date of filing of the complaint before Hon'ble Sub Court is not mentioned in the complaint.) No satisfactory reasons for condoning the delay is seen stated by the complainant. In the interim application there is prayer to condone the delay of 15 days, which we find as false. There is a delay of more than three years in filing the complaint. Receipt of answers under the Right to Information Act by the Reserve Bank of India will not extend the limitation period. Further the prayer to set aside the claim of Rs.1,15,755/- cannot be entertained because already there is a proceeding pending under the SARFASI Act.
In the view of the above discussion, we are of the view that both the IA and the complaint is to be dismissed.
Hence without going in to merits of the case, we dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of August, 2012.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
