Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/935

SHAILA K - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHIEF MANAGER INDIAN BANK - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 935/15

JUDGMENT DTD:07/01/2016

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.519/2014 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, order dated : 19.01.2015)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

 

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

APPELLANT

          Shaila. K., W/o.A.Sathyan,

          ‘Souparnika’, T.C.6/1582,

          Thorottukonam, Thuruvikal. P.O.,

          Thiruvananthapuram District

          From ‘Saikrishna’, Mannaram,

          Vinobha Nikethan. P.O>, Aryanadu,

          Thiruvananthapuram.

 

          (By Adv. Sri.S.Vijayakumaran)

 

                                                                                                Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1.      Indian Bank, Indian Bank Towers,

          M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

          R/by it’s Chief Manager.

 

         

 

2.      Indian Bank Tholicode Branch,

Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram.

R/by its Manager.

 

3.      The Manager, Indian Bank,

Tholicode Branch, Nedumangad,

Thiruvananthapuram District.

 

JUDGMENT

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

            The CDRF,  Thiruvananahtapuram, refused to admit CC No.519/14 filed by the complainant holding that the complaint was not filed within the limitation period.  Incidentally, it is mentioned that the judgment of the Sub Court, Nedumangad in OS 175/08 was not produced.  The complainant is challenging the said order of the Consumer Forum.  The Learned counsel for the complainant / appellant was heard on admission.

          2.  Even as per the allegations in the memorandum of appeal the appellant had availed a housing loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the opposite party in 2002.  It is admitted that default in repayment of loan instalments happened.  Finally the opposite parties approached the Sub Court Nedumangad and filed OS No. 175/08 for realization of the amount due from the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in connection with the same loan transaction and the Hon’ble High Court had stayed all the proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securitisation Interest Act 2002.  According to the appellant she had repaid the entire loan but the opposite parties demanded one rupee more to close the entire loan.  Though the appellant sent DD for Rs.100/-, the opposite parties were not ready to budge.  Deficiency in service is alleged in the above background.

          3.      It is pertinent to mention that a competent Civil Court had passed a valid decree settling the transaction between the parties.  Then what remains is only, questions relating to execution discharge and satisfaction of the decree.  It can be done only before the Civil Court.  No question of deficiency in service arises under the situation explained above.  In the light of the valid decree the allegation that the complainant approached the opposite parties and settled the transaction cannot be accepted on the face value. The complainant should have remitted the amounts in the civil court in satisfaction of the decree and closed the entire matter.  Deficiency in service is alleged against the opposite parties for

 

 

 

 

some other extraneous consideration.  In short there is no ground to admit the appeal for hearing.  Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

Nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

 

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO. 935/15

JUDGMENT DTD:07/01/2016

 

 

nb