D.O.F: 22/01/2016`
D.O.O: 17/10/2018
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.38/16
Dated this, the 17th day of October 2018
PRESENT:
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
Udayakumar P. V., S/o K.V. Raman (Late)
Puthiya Valappil House , Kanhangad. Post, : Complainant
(Adv : Shaji. P. V)
Branch Manager,
Canara Bank, Kanhangad Branch : Opposite Party
Kanhangad.
(Adv : Sadananda Kamath. K)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
That the complainant is a teacher and in the year 2004, he had taken a “Teacher’s” loan of Rs.50.000/- from the Opposite Party. The complainant was repaying the loan installments regularly and in the year 2009 the loan got renewed for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. In that loan was also the complainant remitted the installments regularly. In 2014 the complainant received a notice from the Kozhikode circle office of the Opposite Party to appear for an Adalath. In that Adalath the liability of balance amount of that loan was settled for Rs. 50,000/- and out of that amount , the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- on date of settlement itself and the remaining Rs. 30,000/- was paid within the stipulated time of one month.
After the above payment of the amount the complainant demanded the receipt. But the Opposite Party informed that the receipt will be issued next day. The complainant paid the entire amount and settled the liability in August 2014. But he got a notice again to appear before an Adalath and pay Rs.60610/- as balance amount in December 2014. When the complainant enquired about this it was told that the notice was sent by mistake. Thereafter the Village authorities of Bella Village went to complainant’s parent’s house and served a Revenue Recovery Notice to the complainant and his sureties. When the complainant along with the sureties went to the Opposite Party for clarification, then he was directed to remit Rs.2500/- being the charge of RR proceedings. Even though the complainant had cleared the entire loan amount in August 2014 itself the Opposite Party failed to make necessary entries in the connected records and thereby caused to initiate the RR proceedings against him. The act of the Opposite Party affected the reputation of the complainant in public. Being a teacher, the complainant has got a respectable position in the society. The complainant and his family especially aged mother suffered mental agony and hardships due to negligent irresponsible act of the Opposite Party. There is service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence this complaint. The complainant estimates the damages suffered by him due to the service deficiency of the Opposite Party to a tune of Rs.5, 00,000/- and the Opposite Party is liable to compensate for that.
The notice issued to the Opposite Party was duly served and the Opposite Party entered in appearance through their counsel, who filed written version.
As per the version filed in behalf of the Opposite Party the complainant is false, frivolous, vexatious, not maintainable under law. They contended that the complainant who is a teacher has been a rank defaulter. He did not pay the loan as agreed. The contention of the complainant is that he had been paying the loan amount regularly is not correct. It is also not correct to say that the bank was renewed the loan in 2009. There is no such procedure or practice of renewal in Teacher’s loan. The complainant did not repay the loan as agreed even after the sending of repeated notices and his loan account became sticky turned into Non Performing Asset (NPA)on 27-03-2008. Subsequently the Opposite Party Bank has also caused to send a registered notice on 25-09-2008 which was also received by the complainant. In that situation the Opposite Party bank invited Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant in the year 2014.
Subsequently under the one time settlement scheme the matter has been settled FOR Rs. 50,000/- and the complainant has paid the entire amount on the agreed dates. It is stated that as on the date of OTS, about Rs. 69,744/- was due in the loan account of the complainant. The Opposite Party has given an amount of Rs.19744/- as concession. In the onetime settlement after the payment of agreed amount, the said settlement should be ratified b y the General Manger of the bank concerned. During the pendency of the same process, the account maintained by computer would show the actual amount to be paid. Since the Revenue Recovery Proceedings have been already initiated against the complainant, the commission of Rs.2500/- to the Revenue Recovery authorities to be paid by the complainant. Since the settlement was pending for ratification, the requisition to recall the RR Proceedings could not be sent. Since the proceedings was pending the Village Officer sent notice to the complainant and when the complainant informed about the settlement the RR authorities only demanded the RR commission. But the complainant refused to pay the amount. Even then the Opposite Party bank paid that amount of RR commission apart from the huge concession already given to the complainant. All the allegation that the officials from Village Officer has come to his parents house, where his family including his aged mother with an attachment notice and that caused damage to his reputation and put him great mental agony etc are all false and hence denied.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents Ext A1 to A4 are marked. The Exbt.A1 is the notice dated.04-12-2014, the Adalath notice received by the complainant. Exbt A2 is the demand notice dated 03-12-2014. Exbt A3 is the copy of the registered notice dated 04-03-2015. Exbt.A4 is the reply notice. The PW1 was cross-examined by the Opposite Parties. For the Opposite Parties, the Assistant Manager of Opposite Party bank is examined for which he filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In this case two issues raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
For convenience both these issues can be considered together. The case of the complainant is that he obtained Teacher’s loan from the Opposite Party, bank and was repaying the loan installments regularly and by that time the Opposite Party sent Exbt A1 notice to Adalath for Onetime settlement , where in the loan account was settled and accordingly he paid the entire amount without any default. But even though the entire amount was paid in August 2014, the Opposite Party caused to send Village authorities to his parent’s house with attachment notice due to which his public reputation affected. After the receipt of the entire amount, the Opposite Party failed to make necessary entries in the connected loan records and thereby caused the further proceedings of Revenue Recovery against him. The negligence and irresponsible acts of the Opposite Party, would amount to service deficiency due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships.
The contentions of the Opposite Party are that the complainant is a rank defaulter in repaying the loan in spite of repeated requests and Revenue Recovery Proceedings was pending against him. Subsequently the loan was settled in Onetime settlement scheme and he remitted agreed amount. But since the settlement was to be rectified by the General Manager, they could not recall the Revenue Recovery Proceedings. In that situation the Revenue Recovery authorities sent him notice demanding the payment of the loan. But when the complainant informed the authorities about the Onetime settlement, they only demanded the Revenue Recovery commission amount only.
Here there is no reliable evidence regarding the regularity or irregularity in payment of loan by the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant had taken a loan and the same was repaid in August 2014 by him as per the Onetime settlement scheme. After three months the Village authorities went to his house with Exbt A2 a revenue Recovery notice, demanding the repayment of the very same loan. This Forum
sees that this is a gross negligence and service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party ought to have taken necessary steps to recall the Revenue Recovery Proceedings immediately after the receipt of the agreed amount. That was not done for three months. The argument pending ratification of settlement by the General Manager is not at all acceptable. Due to the negligent and irresponsible act of the Opposite Party the complainant suffered mental agony and hardship. There is a service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.
Therefore the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is liable to pay the complainant Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards the compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings. Time for compliance is 30 days from the receipt of this order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exbts
A1- Adalath notice dated 04-12-2014
A2- Demand notice dated 03-12-2014
A3- Copy of registered notice dated 04-03-2015
A4- Reply Notice dated 30-03-2015
PW1- Udayakumar P.V
PW2- Nithinraj .T.
PW3- C.H. Sudhakaran
DW1- Jayakumar V.V
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps. Senior Superintendent
