BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  :  MEMBER

C.C. No. 26/2014 Filed on 20.01.2014

ORDER DATED: 15.03.2018

Complainant:

Sainudeen, Vayalikkada Veedu, Chittattumukku P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

                                    (By Adv. N.R. Suresh Kumar)                                

Opposite parties:

1. Canara Bank represented by its Managing Director, Head Office, Bangalore, Pin-560 002.

2. The Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Kazhakuttom Branch, Kazhakuttom-695 582.

(By Adv. R. Narayan)

This case having been heard on 31.01.2018, the Forum on 15.03.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

Complainant’s case is that complainant was a loanee of the 1^st opposite party.  He availed a loan from Kazhakuttom branch of the 1^st opposite party and his loan account was 2762811002544. Complainant had been paying back the loan amount.  However there had been a defaulted payment in respect of Rs. 10,477/-.  Accordingly 2^nd opposite party issued a notice dated Nil to the complainant directing him to pay the said amount of Rs. 10,477/- on or before 15.12.2011 in a lump and to close the loan.  Immediately complainant approached the bank and paid a total amount of Rs. 10,588/- as demanded by the 2^nd opposite party across the counter on 14.02.2011 i.e; one day ahead of last date suggested by the 2^nd opposite party in order to avoid the unpleasant situations proposed in the demand notice.  The 2^nd opposite party had accepted the amount from the complainant in full and final settlement of the loan account in the name of the complainant and he had closed the account on that day itself.  Subsequent to the closure of loan account the complainant surprisingly received show cause notice from revenue authorities.  Immediately on receipt of the said notice the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party in person and enquired about the reason for said notice.  Then the 2^nd opposite party told that there would not be any further action in that regard from the revenue authorities since the 2^nd opposite party had sent request letters to the authorities concerned to withdraw the proceedings.  Later it was revealed that the letter of request was sent to Pallippuram village instead of sending it to Kadinankulam village wherein the property situated.  This shows that the 2^nd opposite party had referred the matter to the revenue authorities either before the time allotted to the complainant for closing the loan account or after receiving entire amount and closed the loan account.  On either way it is negligent act of the 2^nd opposite party which tantamount to deficiency in service.  Based on the request of the 2^nd opposite party the revenue recovery officer authorized by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram issued an attachment notice in Forum under Sec. 36 of Revenue Recovery Act and a team of officers led by the RR Tahsildar came to the property of the complainant and effected attachment of 0.34 Ares of property comprised in Sy. No. 536/5 of Kadinamkulam village.  Copies of sale notice were also published in the local panchayat office, Sub Registry, Village Office, Kadinamkulam and at Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram.  The Sub Registrar concerned on getting the notice endorsed the attachment over 34 Ares of property in the said Sy. No. instead of 0.34 ares.  Therefore the attachment is now reflected in the encumbrance certificate of strangers also.  This has resulted in much inconvenience to the complainant and his neighbours as well.  The complainant has been running his business in his plot wherein the attachment was effected by the authorities.  The process adopted by the revenue officials at the spot was in such a way that the entire local people gathered there as if some heneous act had been committed by the complainant.  The incident lowered the reputation of the complainant among the public.  Further the same led to the failure of his business also.  Though these aspects were made known to the 2^nd opposite party, he did not make any effort to save the complainant out of his chaose.  Apart from lowering of the complainant’s reputation, he had to suffer much mental stress and agony due to the indiscriminate, negligent and malafide acts of the 2^nd opposite party.  Thereafter the complainant had to take initiative to get the attachment released by the revenue authorities by paying requisite fee from his pocket and spending his precious time, energy and money.  All these unpleasant incidents happened solely due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties for which the complainant is entitled to get compensation on various heads.  Hence complainant approached this Forum for redressal. 

Notice sent to opposite parties.  Opposite parties appeared and filed version.  As per the version the contention taken is that opposite parties admitted to the extent that the complainant cleared off his dues/arrears on the penultimate day of due date as mentioned in the notice.  However, the complainant did not produce the pay-in-slip or the updated passbook to the concerned officer in charge of recovery proceedings.  Hence the matter was referred to revenue recovery.  Following the settlement of dues by the complainant and information of the same by the complainant, the opposite parties had requested for withdrawal of the RR proceedings, and also had provided charges for the revenue recovery.  About two years later the complainant informed the opposite parties regarding RR proceeding.  Opposite parties had enquired about the same and also again issued a letter to the Tahsildar and Village Officer to withdraw the proceedings.  Numerous correspondences were issued by the opposite parties to the Village Officer and Tahsildar.   

Issues:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P10 marked.  Complainant examined as PW1 and opposite party not cross examined PW1.  Opposite parties not filed chief examination affidavit and opposite parties’ evidence closed.  Here in this case complainant has paid the full amount before the penultimate day mentioned in Ext. P1 notice, but opposite party has taken R.R proceedings against the complainant.  It is crystal clear from the documentary evidence itself that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Having admitted by the opposite parties in their version that “complainant cleared off his entire dues/arrears on the penultimate day of due date in the notice”.  It is crystal clear that opposite parties might have recommended revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant either before the due date or after receiving entire amount due from him.  This is nothing but sheer negligence which tantamount to deficiency of service which resulted in causing much damage to the complainant.  Further Ext. P4 request letter is seen sent to Pallippuram Village instead of Kadinamkulam village where the property is situated.  The bank has ample document with them including the legal scrutiny report by its legal advisor showing the village within which the security property is situated.  This is another instance of negligence on the part of the opposite parties which once again leads to deficiency of service.  Moreover in Ext. P9 reply notice the opposite parties admitted the inadvertent mistake of sending the letter to Village Officer, Pallippuram instead of Village Officer, Kadinamkulam where the property situated. 

We are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and thereby complainant suffered a lot and that is to be compensated.  We are of the opinion that opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony, loss of time and for lowering reputation.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for the mental agony, loss of time and for lowering reputation within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs. 50,000/- carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of March 2018.          

         Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 26/2014

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - M. Sainudeen

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of notice issued by O.P

P2     - Copy of common pay-in-slip

P3     - Copy of Form II Notice dated 13.02.2013

P4     - Copy of letter issued by O.P to the Village Officer, Pallippuram.

P5     - Copy of chalan

P6     - Copy of legal notice

P7     - Copy of postal receipt

P8     - Copy of acknowledgment card

P9     - Copy of reply notice dated 02.05.2013

P10   - Copy of Certificate of Encumbrance on Property

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb