D.O.F:17/11/2020
D.O.O:30/10/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.156/2020
Dated this, the 30th day of October 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
1. Greeshma.M aged 31 years
D/o Sukumaran.M : Complainant
R/at Meethal veedu, Theru
Ajanur. P.O, Anadasramam
2. Sukumaran.M
S/o Chathu.M
R/at Meethal veedu, Theru
Ajanur. P.O, Anadasramam
And
1. Chief Manager
State Bank of India
Kanhangad Branch : Opposite Parties
2. Regional Manager
K.V.R Tower, 3rd Floor
Kannur.
(Adv: Mohan Prakash.K)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The instant complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( as amended )
The facts of the case in brief is that complainants availed a loan of Rs.1,43,00/- from the Opposite Parties for the purpose of education of complainant No.1 .The loan was being repaid by way of EMI regularly. But due to some financial crisis certain instalments were defaulted and the Bank issued notice to the complainants. Thereafter, the entire loan account has been settled before the Taluk Legal Service Authority. As per the Award passed there on the complainant were to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly the amount was remitted in 3 installments. Inspite of that the Opposite Parties issued notice to the complainants which was duly replied. There after the Opposite Parties calling the complainant No:2 and his daughter Complainant No:1 here in, again and again , due to which complainants suffered mental agony. Therefore the complaint is filed for a directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs 50000 /- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
The Opposite Parties entered appearance and filed written statement. As per the version of Opposite Parties, the complaint is false, frivolus, vexatious, and not sustainable at low . It is nothing but a misuse of process of law. It is admitted that the complainants availed a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from State Bank of Travancore .The complainants were very irregular in re payment and Bank was constrained to initiate legal actions and the matter was referred to Lok Adalath and discussed there in. The total amount due was Rs.1,85,580/- but the Bank gave a concession to a great extent and thereby it was settled to Rs.1,00,000/- and it is true that the complainants remitted the amount.
During this time the amalgamation process of the SBT with SBI was going on and due to some technical grounds the above loan account was not closed and was pending in the system .Due to that a system generated notice was issued to the complainant .Knowing of the notice the Opposite Parties took all the necessary steps in the matter and the loan account was closed. The allegation that the Opposite Parties used to call the complainant No:2 and his daughter Complainant No:1 and harassed them etc. are false .No service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and no mental agony caused to the complainants. The complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed affidavit in Iieu of chief examination and marked documents as Ext. A 1 to Ext. A6.The Ext - A1 is the copy of Award dated 10.03.2018 of Taluk Legal Service Authority Ext A 2 is the copy of notice issued by Opposite Parties, Ext. A3 is the copy of Bank Pass book , Ext. A4 to A6 are 3 receipts for remittance by complainants. From the side of Opposite Parties no evidence is adduced.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite party
- If so, what is the relief ?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant they availed a loan of Rs.1,43,00/- from the Opposite Parties for the purpose of education of complainant No.1 .The loan was being repaid by way of EMI regularly. But due to some financial crisis certain instalments were defaulted and the Bank issued notice to the complainants. Thereafter, the entire loan account has been settled before the Taluk Legal Service Authority . As per the award passed there on the complainant was to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly the amount was remitted in 3 installments. Inspite of that the OPs issued notice to the complainants which was duly replied. There after the Opposite Parties calling the complainant No:2 and his daughter Complainant No:1 here in, again and again, due to which complainants suffered mental agony.
As per the version of the Opposite Parties the complaint is false, frivolus, vexatious, and not sustainable at low . It is nothing but a misuse of process of law. It is admitted that the complainants availed a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from State Bank of Travancore .The complainants were very irregular in re payment and Bank was constrained to initiate legal actions and the matter was referred to Lok Adalath and discussed there in. The total amount due was Rs.1,85,580/- but the Bank gave a concession to a great extent and thereby it was settled to Rs.1,00,000/- and it is true that the complainants remitted the amount.
During this time the amalgamation process of the SBT with SBI was going on and due to some technical grounds the above loan account was not closed and was pending in the system .Due to that a system generated notice was issued to the complainant . Knowing of the notice the Opposite Parties took all the necessary steps in the matter and the loan account was closed.
The allegation that the Opposite Parties used to call the complainant No:2 and his daughter, Complainant No:1 here in and harassed them etc. are false .No service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and no mental agony caused to the complainants. The complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.
Here the both the parties are agreeing upon the fact that the loan account was settled in the Adalath and accordingly the complainant paid the settled amount. lt is also admitted that in that Settlement the Bank came forward to give a concession of a considerable amount . The main issue raised by the complainants is that even after the payment of the entire amount, the Opposite Parties issued Ext. A 2 notice which caused mental agony to them.
In the original complaint there were allegations of disturbance by OPs managers by calling complainant No:2 and his daughter, Complainant No:1 over phone again and again etc. But in the affidavit there is nothing to that effect. No evidence for such disturbance by the Opposite Parties.
Regarding the issuance of Ext. A 2 notice, the Opposite Parties explanation is that it was only a system generated notice.
Also it was submitted that during the period the amalgamation process of the SBT with SBI was going on and due to some technical grounds the above loan account was not closed and was pending in the system. Due to that a system generated notice was issued to the complainant . Knowing of the notice the Opposite Parties took all the necessary steps in the matter and the loan account was closed.
During the cross examination the PW - 1 also agrees all these. It was admitted that the complainants were not prompt in remitting EMIs. On a simple perusal of the content of the document Ext. A2 would show that it is an invitation for a talk of settlement with an offer of some concessions and this commission is of the view that there is nothing to cause mental agony to the complainants, as alleged. In this circumstance, this commission of the view that there is no service deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.
But the complainant raised a new case in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination that the Opposite Parties not issued loan clearance certificate to them. The Opposite Parties suggested during cross examination that the loan account already closed and the loan clearance certificate handed over to the complainant, which was denied by the complainant. ln the original complaint there was no such a case and no pleading to the effect that the complainant had approached the Opposite Parties for loan clearance certificate or the Opposite Parties denied the same.
In such a circumstance, since the complainants cleared entire loan amount and loan account is closed they are entitled to get a loan clearance certificate for their perusal and for future use. There is no evidence to show that loan clearance certificate was handed over to the complainant by the Opposite parties.
In the result the complaint is disposed of with a direction to the Opposite Parties s to issue a loan clearance certificate in the above Ioan account to the complaint, by registered post. No order as to costs.
The time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of Award
A2- Copy of notice issued by OP
A3- copy of Bank Pass book
A4 to A6 – Receipts
Witness Examined
Pw1- N. Sukumaran
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
