Kerala

Idukki

cc/230/2018

MS Pthmakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara bank - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2020

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 28.12.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2020

Present :

SMT. ASAMOL. P PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.230/2018

Between

Complainant : M.S. Padmakumar, S/o. Sukumarapillai,

Mundachalil House,

Chottupara P.O.,

Parathodu.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

Canara Bank,

K.P. Complex, 1^st Floor,

Edassery Junction,

New Bus stand, Kattappana.

(By Adv: Biju Mathew)

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

 

The case of the complainant is that :

 

On 30.6.2014, the complainant availed a loan of Rs.9 lakhs from opposite party for purchasing an ambulance. The loan period was 60 months and rate of interest was 9.7% per annum. In the loan Account No.349976831, a pass book was issued to the complainant by the opposite party. In the passbook, it is specifically mentioned that the monthly EMI for the loan is Rs.8220/- and number of instalments is 84 months and rate of interest is 10.15%. As per the passbook, the complainant remitted the loan. The complainant has paid the loan EMI till 30.4.2018. On 30.5.2018, the opposite party sent an SMS to the complainant stating that the loan account is became NPA due to non-payment.

 

The complainant has been repaying the loan regularly and the remittances were more than the EMI fixed by the opposite party. In spite of repaying the loan instalments, the complainant is styled as a defaulter

(cont....2)

- 2 -

and this caused considerable pain and mental agony to the complainant. On 3.9.2018, the complainant sent a complaint to the ombudsman for taking action against the opposite party. However, the ombudsman did not take any action. In spite of payment of loan presented by the opposite party, the loan became default. This was caused due to the recalculation of the loan at 60 months EMI and original EMI was calculated for 84 months. The change in the period and consequent change in EMI was not informed to the complainant. This caused the complainant a loss of more than 5 lakhs and also the complainant is styled as a defaulter and the CIBIL score was also affected. All the aforesaid things were happened due to the gross deficiency in service of the opposite party. Hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party. The following reliefs

are claimed by the complainant (1) the opposite party may be asked to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation (2) the opposite party may be asked to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service of opposite party. (3) The opposite party may be asked to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint.

 

Notice served from the Forum. Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed detailed written version.

 

The opposite party contended in their version that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party also contended that period of loan was 60 months. The opposite party admitted that the loan amount was Rs.9 lakhs and taken on 30.6.2014. The sanction memorandum and loan agreement were signed by the complainant at time of sanction of the loan. As per the sanction, the loan amount of Rs.9 lakhs should have been repaid by 60 monthly instalments of Rs.15000/- each, along with interest as and when due. This is excluding the repayment holding period of 30 months. The first of such instalments shall commence from 31.1.2017. The complainant was not regular in repaying the loan amount and had not paid any amount of alleged EMI of Rs.8,220/- to the opposite party at any point of time. In fact in the passbook given to the complainant, due to an oversight the branch had written the interest amount of Rs.8217/- as monthly instalment, that is, Rs.8220/-. Complainant is now trying to take advantage of the oversight committed by the branch officials. If the alleged EMI of Rs.8220/- is

(cont....3)

- 3 -

multiplied by 60, the instalment amount is Rs.4,93,200/- only. Where as the loan amount availed is Rs.9 lakhs. The complainant was not prompt in paying the EMI. The opposite party never send an SMS stating that the account as NPA. Now an amount of Rs.8,07,342/- is outstanding as on 31.5.2019 in the loan account and it has become NPA. Complainant filed the complaint with a view to prevent the bank from initiating recovery proceedings. Complainant is bound to repay the amount due.

 

The complainant adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit. 2 documents produced and marked as Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is passbook issued from opposite party. Ext.P2 is statement of account for the period from 1.1.2014 to 13.8.2018.

 

The opposite party adduced evidence by proof affidavit and produced 3 documents and marked as Exts.R1 to R3. Ext.R1 is deed of hypothecation. Ext.R2 is statement of account. Ext.R3 is certificate by the branch-in-charge.

 

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard both counsels and have gone through the records. It is seen that the complainant had availed loan of Rs.9 lakhs from opposite party. It is admitted by opposite party in their version. The complainant is bound to repay the loan amount along with interest. The complainant has signed the hypothecation deed which is marked as Ext.R1. As per the Ext.R1, the repayment term is 60 monthly instalments and each of the instalment amount is Rs.15000/- plus interest. However, the opposite party has issued Ext.P1 passbook to the complainant at the same time. In the passbook, it is mentioned that the number of instalments is 84 months and amount of instalment is Rs.8220/- per month. It has commenced from July 2014. The complainant has paid the instalments as per the above mentioned passbook. Opposite party deposed that the passbook was filled and issued by them on July 2014. As per the hypothecation deed, the repayment term is 60 months and instalment amount is Rs.15000/- plus interest. But it is differently

(cont....4)

- 4 -

mentioned in the passbook. So this is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. From the deposition of opposite party, holiday period was for 30 months and the amount collected Rs.8217/- as interest only. It is not believable because after the period of 30 months, opposite party had collected the same amount only. It is considered as per the Ext.R2 statement of account. On a perusal of evidence, we find that opposite party is liable to compensate for the deficiency in service on their part. Whereas the complainant is bound to repay the balance loan amount and interest.

 

Hence the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost to the complainant within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st January, 2020

 

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont....5)

 

 

- 5 -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Padmakumar M.S.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Priya Liz Mathew.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - passbook issued from opposite party.

Ext.P2 - statement of account for the period from 1.1.2014 to 13.8.2018.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - deed of hypothecation.

Ext.R2 - statement of account for the period from 30.6.2014 to 31.5.2019.

Ext.R3 - certificate by the branch-in-charge.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT