Kerala

Idukki

CC/147/2021

Abraham Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idukki Distrait co -Operative bank - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 13.10.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  19^th  day of  September,  2022

Present :

                    SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                               MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                            MEMBER

CC NO.147/2021

Between

Complainant                                        :   Abraham, S/o. Mathew,

                                                                 Chembappillil House,

                                                                 Mankuva P.O.,

                                                                 Konnathadi, Idukki.

    (By Adv: K.B. Selvam)

        And

Opposite Party                                     :   The Manager,

                                                                 IDCB Bank Ltd.,

                                                                 Kambilikandam Branch,

                                                                 Now turned as State Co-operative Bank,

                                                                 Kambilikandam Branch.

    (By Adv:  C.K. Babu)

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act for short).  Case of complainant is briefly discussed here under :

 

          Opposite party is Manager of Kambilikandam branch of IDC Bank Ltd, which is now known as State Co-operative Bank.  Complainant is an aged person.  He had obtained a loan of Rs.25 lakhs from 1^st opposite party by pledging patta of his agricultural land.  Since complainant had cancer, huge amount was spent for his treatment.  Apart from that, due to  vagaries of nature viz., floods and spread of pandemic, agricultural operations of complainant ended up in loss.  Hence complainant defaulted in paying loan instalments.  Government had declared moratorium upon agricultural loans in the wake of floods and pandemic situation. Despite this, opposite party had issued demand notice for recovery of remaining amount from complainant.  This act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore,                                                                                                                (cont….2)

 

• 2  -

complainant prays for a direction against opposite parties to stop the entire recovery proceedings and levy of exorbitant interest and extra charges.  He also seeks payment of Rs.20,000/- compensation from opposite party and Rs.1000/- towards litigation costs.

 

          2. Opposite party had entered appearance and filed written statement.  His contentions are briefly discussed here under :

 

          According to opposite party, complainant had not availed any loan from the bank of opposite party.  He is only guarantor of his son Aneesh, who had availed a loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the bank.  Wife of complainant, namely, Mary Abraham had also mortgaged her property as security for this loan.  A further sum of Rs.2 lakhs was granted to Aneesh, Rs.1.3 lakhs to Mary Baby, Rs.1 lakhs to Mercy Augustine and Rs.2 lakhs to one Arun Baby as loan upon security of the same property.  These loans are over due since 29.6.2019.  Total loan amount recoverable as on 10.11.2021 is Rs.44,57,133/-.  Bank had already granted interest rebate of Rs.71,850 + 1,76,142 + 2,02,000 to the loanees.  Even then loan repayment was defaulted and these accounts have become NPA.  Hence bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. As per RBI Covid Regulatory Guidance, loans which stood standard as on 29.2.2020 alone are eligible for moratorium.  Bank makes personal request for repayment initially and tries to avoid taking coercive steps for recovery.  This is done as a part of bank procedure.  All the loanees can avail OTS scheme until 30.11.2021 for settling their dues.  There is no deficiency in service.  There is no cause of action for this case.  Complaint is experimental in nature.  Hence it is to be dismissed with cost.

 

          3. After filing of written version, case was posted for steps and then for evidence. No steps were taken after availing repeated opportunities for tendering evidence by complainant. Complainant has not turned up to give evidence either. On 1.8.2022, when case was taken for final hearing, an application was filed by the learned counsel for complainant seeking permission for the son of complainant to continue the proceedings on behalf of the original complainant.  This petition was filed by the counsel and accompanied affidavit was also signed by the counsel.  Apart from that son of the complainant also was not present on 1.8.2022.  Hence application filed for appointing the son of complainant as his representative was declined.  As there was no evidence from the side of complainant, no evidence was tendered by opposite party either.  We have heard both sides.  Now the point which arise for consideration are :                                                     

1)  Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?

2)  Whether opposite party is liable   to compensate complainant ?

3)  Reliefs and costs ?

 

                                                                                                                    (cont…..3)

-  3  -

4. Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

          Even going by the complaint averments, it is seen that repayment of loan was defaulted.  There is nothing to show that the loan was standard, so as to make it eligible for moratorium, as per RBI guide lines.  No copies of circulars in this regard were submitted from the side of complainant.  Prayer is to stop recovery proceedings and abstain from the collection of exorbitant interest and extra charges.  Complaint is silent with regard to rate of interest, charges and other charges recovery of which is sought to be prevented.  Averments are vague in nature and hence unconvincing. Probably the complainant is suffering from terminal illness and due to other circumstances, unable to repay the loan amount.  However, this by itself will not amount to any lawful reason under the Act for which recovery proceedings can be ordered to be stopped.  Neither is there any evidence to show that exorbitant interest or charges were levied from the complainant.  According to opposite party, complainant is only a guarantor and not the original debtor.  No documents were submitted from the side of complainant to show that in fact he is the original borrower.  What have been produced along with the complaint is a treatment certificate of complainant and demand notice issued by the opposite party. Considering entire materials on record, we find that complainant does not made out a case of deficiency in service on the side of opposite party.  Therefore he is not entitled for compensation or directions prayed for against opposite party.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 

 

5. Point No.3 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  All Interim orders passed in this case shall stand vacated. 

         

             Pronounced by this Commission on this the   19^th  day of September, 2022

 

 

                                                                                              Sd/-

        SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

                                 Sd/-

   SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

                       Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

                                                  (cont....4)

• 4  -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    -  account details of Anil

Ext.R2    -  copy of promissory note.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR