Karnataka

Mysore

CC/10/6

G.Vendkataswamy Naika - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

N.C.

06 Jan 2010

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE
No.1542/F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysore-570009.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/6

G.Vendkataswamy Naika
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Canara Bank
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi 2. Sri A.T.Munnoli3. Sri. Shivakumar.J.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J. B.A., L.L.B., - Member CC 6/2010 DATED 06.01.2010 ORDER Complainant G. Venkataswamy Naika S/o late Gavinaika, R/at D.No.2717, Medara Keri, 2nd Main, Chamundipuram, Khille Mohalla, Mysore. (By Sri. N. Chaluvaraju) Vs. Opposite Party The Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Nanjumalige Branch, Mysore. Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 04.01.2010 Date of appearance of O.P. : Date of order : 06.01.2010 Duration of Proceeding : PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri. A.T.Munnoli, President 1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,43,770/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost of the proceedings. 2. Amongst other facts in the complaint it is alleged that, in the year 1989, the complainant availed housing loan of Rs.1,10,000/- from the opposite party. It was repayable by monthly installment of Rs.1,000/-. At the time of availing loan, the opposite party collected two LIC policies as collateral security. One was to be mature on 28.03.2006. In case of failure to pay the monthly installments regularly by the complainant, the opposite party was at liberty to adjust the maturity value of the said policy towards the loan. Up to June 2001, complainant remitted installments, as agreed. In the month of April 2004, the complainant handed over Provident Fund Bond and requested the opposite party to adjust the accrued Provident Fund amount to the housing loan. The opposite party failed to adjust the amount as per the request of the complainant. Said negligent act of the opposite party made the interest to accrue. It amounts to deficiency in service. If the opposite party had adjusted the Provident Fund amount in the year 2004, it was not necessary for the complainant to pay penal interest. The complainant sent on requisition to the opposite party on 22.02.2006, to adjust the policy amount to the loan account. On 01.10.2007, a letter was written informing the opposite party that, already letter was given to the SPF section head office, Bangalore to forward the Provident Fund amount to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not take any steps to adjust the amount. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint. 3. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint, we have heard the learned advocate for the complainant regarding admissibility and maintainability of the complainant. Also we have perused the records. 4. Now, we have to consider whether the complainant has proved that the complaint is maintainable? 5. For the following reasons our finding is in negative. REASONS 6. In the year 1989, i.e., nearly about 22 years back, the complainant had availed loan from the opposite party Bank. He climes as per the norms he remitted the installments till June 2001. 7. The grievances of the complainant are that, the opposite party Bank did not get the maturity value of the LIC policy adjusted towards the balance loan amount, the policy, which was collected by the opposite party at the time of advancing the loan as collateral security. Further, grievance of the complainant is that, in the year 2004, Provident Fund Bond was given to the opposite party to adjust the bond amount to the loan account, but that has not been done by the opposite party. 8. From the material available on records, according to the complainant maturity date of LIC policy was 28.03.2006. The complainant made request to adjust the amount of the maturity value to the loan account on 22.02.2006. The bank account extract discloses that, the LIC policy proceeds were credited to the loan account of the complainant on 12.06.2007. Hence, firstly the allegation of the complainant that, the opposite party did not adjust the maturity value of the policy to the loan account, is in correct. Secondly, from the maturity date within 2 ½ months, the amount has been credited into the loan account of the complainant. There is no sufficient evidence to establish as to whether there is delay on the part of the opposite party to make claim of the policy amount from the LIC or otherwise. 9. Even though the complainant alleges that, in the month of April 2004, he submitted Provident Fund Bond to the opposite party, further it is claimed by the complainant that, he wrote a letter to the opposite party on 01.10.2007, intimating that, already he requested the Provident Fund Authority to forward the amount to the opposite party Bank enabling it to adjust the amount to the loan account. The Account extract discloses that, the Provident Fund and gratuity amount were credited into the loan account of the complainant on 19.10.2007 i.e., within a month from the letter of the complainant. 10. Even otherwise, as alleged by the complainant the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party pertains to the year 2007. The complaint is filed in the year 2010. Hence, the complaint is barred by limitation. 11. For the reasons noted above, we are of the opinion that, the complaint is not maintainable and accordingly following order. ORDER 1. The complaint is dismissed. 2. Give a copy of this order to complainant according to Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 6th January 2010) (A.T.Munnoli) President (Y.V.Uma Shenoi) Member (Shivakumar.J.) Member




......................Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi
......................Sri A.T.Munnoli
......................Sri. Shivakumar.J.