SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.
The complaint is filed for the return of Rs.10318/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% from 17.4.2010 and for getting compensation Rs.2000/- and notice charges Rs.300/-
The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:-
The complainant, a member in the 1st opp.party Society under membership NO.4147 had availed a loan for Rs.25,000/- [Rupees twenty five thousand only] on 3..8..1998 executing a mortgage dated 28..7..98 through Sub Registry of Chathannoor. As the complainant defaulted in repayment, opp.party bank filed Arbitration case. It was awarded in favour of opp.party 1. During the pendency of EP.No.476/03 the complainant had repaid an amount of Rs.49820/- in different occasions. As per the directions of opp.parties, the complainant again paid an amount of Rs.25,000/-on 21.10.2010. Totally the complainant repaid an amount of Rs.74820/- in the opp.party bank as on 21.1.2010. On 17.4.2010 1st opp.party had executed released deed. The release deed was executed by bank for an amount of Rs.46087/- only. It is stated in release deed that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards principal amount, and Rs.21087/- towards interest has been collected from the complainant. On the same day of the execution of release deed itself, the bank has repaid Rs.18415/- to the complainant, but failed to repay Rs.10,318/- and that amount was appropriated for their personal purposes. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for the return of Rs. 10,318/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date 17.4.2010 and other reliefs.
The opp.party filed version contenting the allegations raised by the complainant. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant had availed a loan on3..8..1998 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- as per loan No.117/98-99. As the complainant defaulted in repayment OP filed ARC case and it was awarded in favour of opp.party and EP476/03 also was filed. In the meantime the complainant remitted Rs.45720/-periodically. The statement made in the complaint that the complainant had paid Rs.49820/- is not correct. In addition to this amount, the complainant remitted Rs.25,000/- and bank Kept that amount in Suspense Account. After the reduction of some amounts as per the direction in the OTS Scheme the mount to be paid by the complainant was fixed at Rs.56,323/- including Principal amount Rs.25,000/- ARC charges Rs.587/- and EP expenses Rs.208/-. As the interest in exceeded the principal amount, the interest to be paid is fixed as Rs.25,000/- Establishment charges Rs.5530/- also collected from the complainant
Rs.18,415/- was refunded to the complainant. The amount received from the complainant was fully accounted in favour of his account. No excess amount was collected from the complainant.
The amount collected from the complainant was mistakenly recorded in the letter by the Asst. Secretary of the Bank as Rs.46087/- instead of Rs.56,323/- . The copy of the letter was kept in file and that copy was used for preparing release paper. Hence the mistake was taken place in the release deed also . The mistake was come to the notice of opp.party only when the opp.party had received the Adv. Notice. Immediately, the opp.party sent a letter to the complaint and convinced the accounts to the complainant and it was informed to the complainant’s counsel also. No financial loss or mental agony sustained by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service from the opp.party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
From the side of the complainant PW.1 and 2 were examined. Exts. P1 to P11 marked. Ext. D1 and D2 were marked from the side of opp.parties
The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties
2. Compensation and cost.
Points 1 and 2
Admittedly the complainant who is a member of the society had availed a loan on 3..8..1998 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- As the complainant defaulted in repayment ARC was filed and it was awarded in favour of the 1ST opp.party. EP was filed by the opp.parties. In the mean time the complainant had remitted Rs.49,820/- on various dates
In addition to this amount the complainant remitted Rs.25000/- and that amount was kept in suspense account. The facts that the loan was settled, release deed was executed and Rs.18,415/- wAS repaid to the complainant also were admitted.
The main contention of the complainant is that the release deed was executed only for an amount of Rs.46087/- and Rs.10318/- was appropriated by the opp.parties for their own purpose.
According to the opp.parties the amount recorded as 46087/- in the letter for registering release deed is only a mistake committed by the Asst. Secretary of opp.party Bank. The 2nd opp.party signed the letter with out getting knowledge of this mistake. Actually Rs.56087/- was accounted to the loan account of the complainant. No amount was appropriated for their personal purpose and no loss was sustained to the complainant. The mistake was come to the notice of the opp.parties only when the Bank had received the Adv. Notice sent in favour of the complainant. On receipt of Adv. Notice Opp.party sent a notice to the complainant for his personal appearance. He had appeared at the Bank on 27..5..2010. The 2nd opp.party had explained the entire details of his loan account and the complainant had convinced by these explanations. The matter was informed to the complainant’s Advocate also.
The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the statement made by the opp.parties that the 2nd opp.party committed mistake while preparing loan liability of the complainant and it was recorded mistakenly is utter false. It was done deliberately. In Ext.P9 there is no such items mentioned as Establishment fee etc.. It is seen that an amount of Rs.5530/- is adjusted towards interest. An amount of Rs.25,000/- is never received as interest from the complainant. The opp.party never issued any receipts for the payment of Rs.56323/- towards the loan liability of the complainant. They have issued receipt only with regards to the payment of Rs.49820/- and for Rs.25,000/- was kept in the suspense account.
The learned counsel for the opp.parties argued that the entire amount remitted by the complainant is credited to the loan account of the complainant and for which proper receipts were also issued. Total amount of Rs.74720/- was received by the bank. After closing account, an amount of Rs.18415/- was paid to the complainant instead of Rs.18397/- . Even though the complainant was issued with receipts he had not produced the receipts before the Forum. The complainant himself had admitted the receipt of Rs.18415/- in Ext.P9, certified copy of the ledger . It can be revealed from Ext.P9 and P10 that the amount remitted by the complainant is forwarded to his loan account on 30..3..2010 during the period of OTS.
While in cross examinationPW.1 has stated that he has not known whether the account has been closed after transferring the amount which was deposited in the suspense account to the loan account. The learned counsel put the question that “\n§Ä \ÂInb ]W-¯n-s\Ãmw bank  \n¶p receipt \ÂIn-bn-«ptÃm? PW.1 answered that “ Ipd¨v payments \p receipts \ÂIn-bn-«n-pv. The learned counsel put further question that “ XpI apgp-h³ Bank se cash counter  Atà AS-¨Xv? PW.1 answered “AsX vv
The complainant had never raised any contention at any stage prior to the filing of the complaint that no receipts were issued for his repayments. . It is the responsibility of the depositor to collect proper receipts for the payments made by him. No contention was raised at the time of repayments regarding the non- issuance of receipts. It is unbelievable that receipt was issued for some of the payments only . We feel that there is no bonafides in his statement that receipts were not issued for some of the payments.. On perusal of Ext. P9 and P10 we find that the total amount of Rs.74720/- was credited to the loan account of the complainant.
Another contention of the complainant is that even after the receipt of the Adv. Notice, the opp.party Bank never summoned the complainant before the bank and made clear the liability of the complainant with the opp.party. The complainant never put his signature in any papers of the Bank. Ext. D2 is a fabricated document in a typical paper. It was not prepared in the letter pad of the Bank.
Regarding this aspect the learned counsel for the opp.party argued that on getting the complainant’s Advocate notice immediately the opp.party had sent a letter to the complainant seeking his personal appearance to verify the details of the said loan account. As per the letter the complainant appeared before the bank and the entire details of the loan account was explained to the complainant. After convincing all the facts the complainant signed Ext. D1 and D2. The matter was informed to the complainant’s counsel also. Ext. D1 and D2 were denied by the complainant. But the opp.party argued that the signature in Ext. D1 and D2 and signature in the complaint is one and the same. On verification we are convinced that the signature in Ext. D1, D2 are made by the same person.
The Secretary in charge of the opp.party was examined as PW.2` While in cross examination PW.2 has stated that “Ext P9  complainant sâ loan account final Bbn F{X cq]bv¡p close sNbvXp F¶v Fgp-Xn-bn-«p-v AXp Hgn¨p _m¡n Dff XpI proceedings FÃ#w remarks Fgp-Xn-bn-«pv Ext.P9 page 2  F{X cq]-bv¡vloan close sNbvXp F¶v Fgp-Xn-bn-«p-v Register  pencil D]-tbm-Kn-¨mWv Fgp-Xn-bn-«p-f-f-Xpv
The learned counsel for the complainant put the question that “ pencil C«v Fgp-Xnb entry loan ledger  CÃtÃm ? PW.2 answered that “ Dv Ext.P9  Dv “The learned counsel further put the question that “Pencil C«v Fgp-Xnb entry apgp-h³ lÀPn-¡m-csâ suit notice In«nb tijw Fgp-Xn-tNÀ¯-X-tà ? [A]”Aà “
We have perused Ext P9 in detail. It is seen that all the payments made by the complainant which are mentioned in the complaint are entered in the ledger. The last payment Rs.25,000/- made by the complainant was kept in Suspense Account and it was adjusted to the loan account on 30..3..2010 The closing adjustments as per one time settlement scheme only was calculated using pencil. All the receipts and payments were made using pen itself. Ext.P7 was prepared by the complainant himself it is not signed or sealed and has no authenticity. The complainant failed to prove that how he had arrived these amounts.. The complainant had produced Ext. P1 and P8 to prove that the complainant’s loan account was closed on payment of Rs.46887/- including principal amount Rs.25,000/- interest Rs.19900/- other items Rs.1187/-. It is alleged that Ext.P7 and P8 were written by the Secretary of the opp.party Bank to the president of opp.party Bank recommending the release of documents. Ext.P7 and P8 holds no authenticity and those documents were not proved. The person who had written and signed the alleged document was not examined. Even though the opp.parties raised objection in marking these documents, the complainant had not taken any attempt to prove the same.
The specific contention of the complainant is that excess amount was collected from him. The complainant had clearly stated this aspect while
in cross examination. The learned counsel for the complainant put the question that “\n§fn \n¶p ssI¸-änb XpI-tb-¡mÄ Ipd¨v Hgn-hp-Ipdn Fgp-Xn-¯¶p F¶-Xtà ]cmXn ? PW.1 answsered that Rm³ ASbvt¡ XpI-tb-¡mÄ hkq sNbvXp IqSp-X-embn ssI¸-änb XpI XncnsI \ÂI-W-sa-¶m-h-i-y-s¸-«p. BbXv In«p-¶-Xn-\mWv ]cm-Xn.” In the above mentioned circumstances we have verified the records to ascertain that whether the opp.parties had collected an exorbitant amount than the amount he was actually liable to pay
It is an admitted fact that the loan was availed in the year 98-99 and it was closed only on 30..3..2010. The interest rate as per Ext.P9 was 18%. The rate of interest was not challenged by the opp.party. PW.1 had stated while in cross examination that Loan sâ interest rate Rm³ tNmZn-¨n-«n-Ã; ]d-ªn-«p-an-Ã. ARC Award Bb-ti-jpw interest rate F{X-sb-¶p And-bn-Ã.vLoan FSp-¯-XpIbv¡vv18% Dw ARC Award ]mkm-¡n-b-tijw 20% . Dw BsW-¶p ]d-ªm F\n-¡-dn-bnà The complainant further stated that hmbv]m \¼À Ad-nbnÃv 98  BWv loan. FSp-¯Xv The learned counsel for opp.party had suggested that “ hmbv]- \¼À 117/98-þ99 F¶p ]d-ªm icnbtWm? A HmÀ½-bn-Ã.
The oral testimony of the complainant itself reveals his irresponsible attitude. He was not aware of the interest rate. Even the loan number was not known to him.
It is understood from Ext. P9 that ARC 162/02 was decreed for the sum of Rs.44701/- with interest on principal amount with effect from 24.7.2002
The complainant made payments in various dates only after ARC Award. Thus grand total of Rs 49820/-was remitted by the complainant and credited to his loan account.. Rs.25,000/- was remitted on 21.10.2010 and it was kept in the suspense account. PW.2 has stated while in cross that “B\p-Iq-e-yw-In-«p-s¶-¦n In«s« F¶p hnNm-cn-¨mWv” The learned counsel for the complainant put the question that suspense account  ss]k-C-«n-sÃ-¦nepw settle sN¿m³ _p²n-ap-«n-Ãtà PW.2 answered that “OTS B\p-Iq-e-y-¯n-\v circular CsÃ-¦n B\p-Iq-eyw sI#Sp-¡p-hm³ ]än-Ã.”
It is true that the benefits of OTS can be allowed to the loanee only when the circular for OTS is in force. Opp.party has settled the account as per the directions given in the circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Even though the amount was deposited on 21..1..2010 it was adjusted to the complainant’s loan account only on 30..3..2010. If the amount was credited to the loan account at the time of the remittance itself, the OTS benefit would not have been allowed to the complainant and the complainant would have been liable to pay more amount as interest. In this case, the opp.party collected only an amount of Rs.25,000/- as interest for more than 11 years which was only an amount equal to the principal amount. No excess amount was collected from the complainant. From these facts it is clear that opp.party credited the last payment Rs.of 25,000/- to the suspense account only with an intention to help the complainant and to settle his loan account on the basis of the OTS scheme.
The learned counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant had approached the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies but he had not taken any action. The complainant had not produced any document to show that he had approached Joint Registrar and filed a complaint there. No such averments incorporated in the complaint.
The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the opp.party did not examine the document writer to prove their case and the admission of opp.parties that they have committed a mistake while preparing a chit for execution of release deed, itself shows that the opp.parties have committed deficiency in service
In our opinion there is no need to examine the document writer as he had prepared the release deed only on the basis of the letter signed by the Secretary of the Co-Op Bank. The mistake was happened while the Asst. Secretary of the Bank preparing the letter. There is no chance to get the knowledge of this mistake to the document writer
Considering all the facts, and circumstances and the entire evidence before us we find that, no excess amount was collected from the complainant.Only a very reasonable interest was collected by the opp.parties No loss or liability caused to the complainant. The error committed by the opp.parties only because of a mistake happened from the Asst. Secretary of opp.party Bank while he was writing the letter for release deed and that mistake should be rectified. That mistake was not made intentionally
and it cannot be treated as deficiency in service. Executing Release Deed for lesser amount will not cause any loss or damage to the complainant. The complainant miserably failed to establish the alleged misappropriation of money by the opp.parties for their personal purpose.. We find that there no deficiency in service from the side of opp.party. The points found accordingly.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2012.
I n d e xList of witnesses for the complainant:
PW.1. – Sidhan
PW.2. – Sundarangan
List of documents for the complainbant
P1. – Ozhuvumuri
P2. – Advocate notice
P3. – Postal receipt
P4. – Reply notice
P5. – Receipt
P6. – Receipt dated 24.12.2009
P7. – Receipt dt. 30.3.2010
P8. – Letter issued by the President of Opp.Bank
P9. – Loan register
P10. – Suspense account Register page 11
P11. – Voucher
List of witnesses for the opp.parties : NIL
List of documents for the opp.parties
D1. – Counter foil
D2. – Proceedings
