Kerala

Idukki

CC/134/2020

James P P - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv:K M Sanu

28 Feb 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 15.10.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  28^th  day of  February, 2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.134/2020

Between

Complainant     :     James P.P.,

Pallickamyalil House,

Thodupuzha East P.O.,

Thodupuzha.

           (By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties     : 1. The Canara Bank,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Thodupuzha Branch,

Thodupuzha P.O.

      2.  The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Thodupuzha P.O.

 (Both by Adv: Biju Mathew)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

Complainant is an old customer of 2^nd opposite party bank, namely, Canara Bank, represented by its manager who is arrayed as 1^st opposite party in his capacity as manager of Thodupuzha branch.  Complainant had availed a loan for agricultural purposes in September 2019 from opposite parties.  Loan amount was Rs.2,26,000/-.  Complainant was made to understand that there was subsidy for interest as it was an agricultural loan.  After subsidy, complainant will have to pay only 4% interest for the loan.  Amount was received on 23.9.2019.  Complainant had cleared the entire loan within a few days before its closing date.  However, opposite parties have realized Rs.2,46,694/- from complainant towards closure of loan.  They have collected Rs.19,504/- towards interest on loan and Rs.1,190/- towards other charges.  If interest were to be charged upon subsidy rates, complainant will have to pay only Rs.9000/- or any amount near to it, towards interest.  Charging of interest without subsidy amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties.  Complainant prays for a direction against opposite parties to recalculate interest at 4% simple and to return excess amount paid by him with 12% interest.  He further seeks compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.  

 

2.  Both opposite parties have entered appearance and filed a joint written version.  Their contentions are briefly narrated hereunder :

 

According to opposite parties, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  It is true that complainant has availed an agricultural loan of Rs.2,26,000/-.  However, averments to the effect that he was made to believe that interest payable after subsidy will be only 4% are not correct.  Opposite parties have not induced the complainant to take the loan.  Further averments that only Rs.9000/- or any near amount only is due towards interest are also not correct.  Complainant has no cause of action against opposite parties.  At the time when complainant had availed the loan, there was interest subvention scheme for providing interest subsidy for agricultural loans.  Department of Agriculture, Co-operation, Farmers Welfare Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India had conveyed a decision to stop interest subvention and incentive interest to non-KCC account including agricultural gold loans with effect from 1.10.2019.  Bank was also informed that agricultural gold loans opened prior to this date will get subvention and incentive.  Later, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, as per Reference No.1-9/2020-credit-1 dated 23.3.2020 have informed the bank that all agricultural gold loans and non-KCC short term crop loans will be eligible for interest subvention only if those are closed / converted to KCC, before 31.5.2020.  When this communication was received, opposite parties have displayed this information in their notice board.  In addition to this, SMS was sent to all borrowers who have availed gold loans.  

 

After this, Reserve Bank of India had issued additional guidelines under Covid-19 Regulatory Provision that moratorium has been further extended for a period of 3 months from 3.6.2020 to 31.8.2020.  In view of this, RBI, as per letter No.FIDD.CO.FSD.BC No.25/05.02.001/2019-20 has informed bank that Government has decided to continue interest subvention and incentive to farmers for extended period of repayment up to 31.8.2020 or date of repayment whichever is earlier.  This was notified by the Government in all newspapers and medias often.  Opposite parties have displayed this information in their notice board and SMS was issued to all borrowers who had availed gold loans and non-KCC crop loans.  

 

In the present case, date of repayment is after the last date fixed by RBI.  Complainant has paid the loan amount after the extended date.  Payment was on 7.9.2020, which was beyond the stipulated period.  Hence complainant is not eligible for interest subvention and incentive interest under the directions of RBI.  Opposite parties are bound by the directions of RBI and Government of India.  Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.  Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

3. After the filing of written version, case was posted for steps and then for evidence.  Though the complainant had filed proof affidavit, he was not available on subsequent postings, repeatedly, for cross examination as decided by opposite parties.  Subsequently, it was represented that complainant is not tendering any oral evidence and that document produced by him is to be marked from his side.  Said document is a statement of account pertaining to the loan account of complainant which is admitted as Ext.P1, without formal proof.  From the side of opposite parties, 2^nd opposite party was examined as RW1 and Exts.R1 and R2 were marked.  Evidence was closed and both sides were heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint ?

3)  Final order and costs.

 

4.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

Able counsel for complainant would contend that complainant was not given sufficient copies of Exts.R1 and R2.  If he were to  receive information with regard to the date, he would have certainly cleared the loan amount before  last date.  Able counsel would point out that last date was 31.8.2020 or date of repayment whichever was earlier.

 

Learned counsel for opposite parties would point out that as directed in the directions given from  head quarters, admitted as Exts.R1 and R2, communications were displayed in the notice board and SMS messages were sent to all borrowers who had availed gold loans.  This fact is mentioned in the written version and RW1 had given evidence in this regard also.  There is no oral evidence from the side of complainant in denial of this fact.

 

Thus, these are the rival contentions.  As per Ext.P1, produced from the side of complainant, product code / name is 842AL gold loan.  As per statement of account, loan amount is cleared on 7.9.2020.  However, the statement reveals that there was  accrued interest of Rs.2,364/- up to the month end date.  Presently, we are not upon the correctness of entries in Ext.P1.  Ext.P1 would prove that the loan was cleared on 7.9.2020 and product code shown as 842 AL is the subject matter here.  Ext.R1 is the first circular, namely, Circular No.179/2020 dated 30.3.2020.  As per this circular, last date shown is 31.5.2020.  As per clause 6 in Ext.R1, this benefit is available only to KCC loan products with effect from 1.6.2020; product code shown of eligible loans are 840, 895, 899, 812 and 841.  842 AL gold loan is not included in column No.6 of Exts.R1.  Ext.R2 is Circular 438/2020 dated 6.6.2020.  As per this circular, extended period of repayment of loan was upto 31.8.2020 on account of Covid-19.  Eligible loans under this category, which are mentioned in column No.5 of circular, will get the benefit only upto 31.8.2020 or date of repayment whichever is earlier.  In column No.5, pertaining to Canara Bank, product code No.842 AL gold loan is not seen included.  Thus, going by Exts.R1 and R2, loan subsidy was not extended to the loan availed by complainant.  That apart, the case projected in the complaint was denial of subsidy without any sufficient cause.  During cross examination of RW1, attempt was to bring out that sufficient notice of Exts.R1 and R2 were not given to borrowers including complainant.  RW1 has given evidence that information relating to Exts.R1 and R2 was displayed in notice board and individual SMS / messages were given to borrowers concerned including complainant.  There is no contra evidence from the side of complainant.  Apart from all this, gold loan availed by complainant was not eligible for subsidy as per Exts.R1 and R2.  Therefore, non-granting of subsidy in interest rate will not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  Complainant has not proved that there was a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.  He is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for either.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.3 :

 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  Parties to take back extra copies, without delay.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the    28^th   day of February, 2024

 

 

    Sd/-

       SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

    Sd/-

    SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

RW1      -   Basil K. Varkey

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    - Statement of account of the loan.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    - Copy of Circular No.179/2020 dated 30.3.2020

Ext.R2    -  Copy of Circular 438/2020 dated 6.6.2020.  

 

 

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR