Kerala

Idukki

CC/22/2018

Preamkumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Devikulam Taluk Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.shiji Joseph

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 6.2.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.22/2018

Between

Complainant : Premkumar,

Kunnumpurathu House,

Valara P.O.,

Deviyar Colony, Idukki.

(By Advs: Sunny M. Thenaly

& Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The President,

Devikulam Taluk Co-operative

Agricultural and Rural

Development Bank Ltd. No.I/136,

Adimali P.O., Idukki.

2. The Secretary,

Devikulam Taluk Co-operative

Agricultural and Rural

Development Bank Ltd. No.I/136,

Adimali P.O., Idukki.

(Both by Adv: Praveen K. George)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that :

 

The complainant and his brother jointly availed an agricultural loan from opposite party bank in the year 1995-96 as loan No.DHHLO 43/95. Due to the fail in cultivation and due to diseases, the complainant failed to repay the loan amount. Hence the complainant approached the Kerala State Debt Relief Commission and filed an application for waiving the loan dues. The Debt Relief Commission considered this application and heard the matter in the presence of opposite parties, in their sitting at Guest House, Thodupuzha on 25.7.2008. After hearing the matter, the Debt Relief Commission ordered to re-schedule the loan dues from 1,16,041/- to Rs.50000/- and direct the

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

complainant to pay half of the amount to the bank on or before 31.3.2009 and the rest of the amount shall bear by the Government. As ordered by the Debt Relief Commission, complainant remitted his share to the bank on 31.3.2009. At that time, opposite party has not raised any objection before the Debt Relief Commission. Thereafter opposite parties preferred a review petition before the Debt Relief Commission. This review petition was heard by the Debt Relief Commission in their sitting on 17.2.2012 at PWD Rest House, Thodupuzha and again the balance loan dues are re-scheduled as Rs.50000/- and direct the complainant to pay half of the amount, that is, Rs.25000/- before 31.12.2012 and the balance amount shall bear by the Government. As per this order, complainant remitted Rs.25000/- to the opposite party bank as directed by the Commission, on 31.12.2012. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties 1 and 2 for getting back his title deed of 78 cents of property which was pledged as security at the time of availing the loan. But the opposite parties denied to issue the document to the complainant. While so, on 17.5.2016, the complainant received a notice from the opposite party demanding to remit Rs.42,737/- as the principal loan amount dues along with Rs.52,036/- interest. In total, opposite party demanded Rs.94,773/- as loan dues, failing which the opposite party will initiate recovery proceedings.

 

The complainant further averred that, this matter was already decided by the Debt Relief Commission and the opposite party bank issued this notice, simply over riding or neglecting the decision of the Debt Relief Commission. Moreover, the opposite party bank collected an amount of Rs.50000/- in this loan from the Government as ordered by the Debt Relief Commission. This act of the opposite parties caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and such an act of the opposite party is a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Against this the complainant filed this petition seeking reliefs such as to direct the opposite party to close the loan account of the complainant and his brother Pushpakaran and to release the property which was pledged as security and return the documents. Further direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version contending that an amount of Rs.60,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant as housing loan. He withdrawn the amount in three instalments from 30.6.1995 to 19.8.1995. The rate of interest of the loan was 13% and the duration was 20 years. As on 26.2.2018, the balance outstanding loan amount was Rs.1,07,437/- which includes principal amount outstanding Rs.42737/-, interest Rs.57683/-, penal interest Rs.6205/-, notice charges Rs.670/-, insurance

(cont.....3)

- 3 -

Rs.142/-. Opposite party further contended that, in this loan, complainant remitted Rs.88,480/- in total. This amount is credited in the loan account as Rs.17263/- as principal outstanding, Rs.61,426/- as interest Rs.7762/- as penal interest, Rs.1390/- as notice charges and Rs.639/- as insurance.

 

Opposite party further contended that, when they initiated property auction proceedings, the complainant approached the Debt Relief Commission and the commission stopped the auction proceedings subject to the condition that, the complainant shall remit Rs.5000/- on 30.10.2007 and Rs.5000/- on 30.12.2007. The Debt Relief Commission cannot allow relief to the housing loan above Rs.50000/- as per Debt Relief Commission Ruler. So the Debt Relief Commission limited this loan to Rs.50000/- and directed the complainant to remit half of this amount. Against this order, opposite party filed review petition before the Debt Relief Commission and on considering this petition, Debt Relief Commission further limited the loan to Rs.50000/- and directed the complainant to pay half of this amount. The amount was remitted by the complainant and it was credited in the loan account.

 

Opposite party further contended that, the actual loan due is Rs.1,16,041/-. When the loan period of 20 years is over, the opposite party bank issued notices to the complainant for remitting balance loan dues and the complainant is liable to remit the balance loan dues. Fact being so, there is no deficiency in service in this matter from the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents and Exts.P1 to P5 marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of order of Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission dated 25.7.2008. Ext.P2(series) are the copy of cash receipt dated 30.3.2009 and 31.3.2009. Ext.P3 is the copy of order of the above Debt Relief Commission dated 17.2.2012. Ext.P4 is the copy of cash receipt dated 31.12.2012. Ext.P5 is the copy of demand notice issued in favour of Pushpakumar dated 17.5.2016.

 

From the opposite side, except the reply version, no other evidence adduced.

 

Heard both sides.

 

Point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? (cont.....4)

- 4 -

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsel for both parties and had gone through the evidence or record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant and his brother Pushpakumar availed a loan of Rs.60000/- from opposite party bank on 30.6.1995 as No.DHHLO-43/95-96 by pledging their properties having an extend of 78 cents. Due to the distressed crops, the complainant failed to remit the loan instalments properly. Hence the complainant approached the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission and filed an application for Debt Relief Commission. On convincing that the cultivation are declared as distressed crops and the district has been declared as distress affected area by the Government of India, the Debt Relief Commission fixed the fair optimum as Rs.50000/-. At that time, the loan outstanding was Rs.1,16,041/-.

 

The Debt Relief Commission found that the applicant is eligible for debt relief. So the Commission granted Debt Relief to the extend of Rs.25000/- and the complainant was directed to pay the balance amount on or before 31.3.2009. As per Ext.P2(series), it is seen that, the complainant complied this order. Against this order, the opposite party bank approached the Debt Relief Commission and filed a review petition. This petition was considered by the Debt Relief Commission on 17.2.2012 and again the appropriate level of the loan was fixed as Rs.50000/- and granted a relief of Rs.25000/- and directed the complainant to pay the balance amount on or before 30.12.2012. On perusing Ext.P4 cash receipt issued by the opposite party, it is seen that, the complainant complied the direction of Debt Relief Commission. As per records, by this way, the complainant remitted Rs.50000/- in this loan account and the Debt Relief amount of Rs.50000/- was received by the bank from the Government. Hence in total, Rs.1 lakh was credited in the loan account till 31.12.2012. In this case, as per Exts.P1 and P4 order of the Debt Relief Commission, it is very clear that the commission limited the loan as Rs.50000/- in two times. At that time, complainant has not raised any objection. Eventhough the complainant specifically stated the outstanding dues in this loan account by splitting up, no evidence like the loan statement is produced before the Forum for establishing their plea. Through Ext.P5 notice, opposite party demanded Rs.94,773/- as the loan dues as on 20.5.2016. But no evidence is produced by the complainant to convince the Forum that how they calculated this amount. Without having sufficient materials to substantiate the version, the plea raised by the opposite party cannot be considered.

 

In this case, it is very clear that the Debt Relief Commission limited the loan dues as Rs.50000/- each in two times. They considered the matter after

(cont.....5)

- 5 -

convincing that the complainant is a distressed farmer and the area where the complainant is residing was declared as Distressed District by the Central Government.

 

On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, the allegation levelled against the opposite party by the complainant is believable and sustainable and demanding a huge amount as loan arrears without having a piece of evidence is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and it is against the principles of natural justice.

 

Under the above circumstances, the complaint allowed. The Forum directs the opposite parties to close the loan account of the complainant and return the documents of the property which was pledged in the loan, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order to cost or compensation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of June, 2019

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of order of Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission

dated 25.7.2008.

Ext.P2(series) - copy of cash receipt dated 30.3.2009 and 31.3.2009.

Ext.P3 - copy of order of the above Debt Relief Commission

dated 17.2.2012.

Ext.P4 - copy of cash receipt dated 31.12.2012.

Ext.P5 - copy of demand notice issued in favour of Pushpakumar

dated 17.5.2016.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT