IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2024
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 432/2023 (Filed on 16/12/2023)
Complainant : Jyothi V.N,
W/o Sajimon P.S
Akkattupathil House,
Chengalam South P.O,
Kottayam - 686 546.
(By Adv: Raju Abraham )
Vs.
Opposite party : Secretary
Karappuzha Service So-Operative
Bank Ltd. No. 74
Kottayam
(By Adv: Shibu Jacob)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows:
The complainant’s Husband Sajimon had availed a property loan for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) on 18/05/2018 by mortgaging his property from the Opposite Party. The complainant’s husband Sajimon died on 1/04/2023. On enquiry with the opposite party about the loan, it was learnt that an amount of Rs.12,003/- (Rupees Twelve thousand and three only) was paid on 17/03/2023 and Rs. 2,60,000/- (Rupees Two lakh sixty thousand only) is the remaining balance in the loan account. The opposite party informed that no further instalment is to be paid, and since the husband of the complainant had died, they will get the insurance amount from the risk fund. The opposite party had collected signature of the complainant for application for getting insurance from the risk fund.
After six months the complainant requested the opposite party to close the loan and to return the property documents to the complainant. But the opposite party declined to close the loan and to give the documents. The opposite party informed that the complainant will not get the insurance from the risk fund, and the complainant had to remit the balance loan amount with interest.
The complainant had remitted Rs.2, 61,416/- (Rupees Two lakh sixty one thousand four hundred and sixteen only) to the opposite party on 26/10/2023 towards the loan account of the husband. If a member of the opposite party died after availing a loan the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees 3 Lakhs only) will be sanctioned the risk fund for closing the loan. The act of the opposite party demanding the complainant to remit the balance of loan amount with interest is deficiency in service on their part.
This complaint is filed for getting a direction to refund Rs. 2, 61,416/- (Rupees Two lakh sixty one thousand four hundred and sixteen only) to the complainant with interest and to get compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as cost for this litigation.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was served to the opposite party. Though the notice was duly served to the opposite party on 03/01/2024, the opposite party filed version on 11/03/2024 beyond the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice from the commission, hence version was not accepted.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 and A2.
On the basis of the complaint and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- If so what are the reliefs and costs?
POINTS 1 & 2
On going through the complaint and chief affidavit of the complainant it is clear that the complainant’s husband Sajimon was a member of the opposite party co-operative Bank having member No.12909. Sajimon had availed a loan from the opposite party for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on 18/05/2018. The said Sajimon died on 1/04/2023 during the pendency of the loan.
Exhibit A1 is the cash payment receipt dated 17/03/2023 for the payment of Rs.12,003/- (Rupees Twelve thousand and three only) towards the property loan by Sajimon having member No.12909.
Exhibit A2 is the cash payment receipt dated 26/10/2023 for the payment of Rs.2,61,416/- (Two lakh sixtyone thousand four hundred and sixteen only) towards the property loan of Sajimon having memberNo.12909.
On going through Exhibit A2 it is evident that the complainant had remitted the amount of Rs.2,61,416/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty one thousand four hundred and sixteen only) on 26/10/2023 without any protest. Even though the complainant allege that the opposite party had stated that the complainant will not get benefits at the insurance amount from the risk fund, no evidence is adduced by the complainant to establish this contention. Moreover the complainant failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the insurance under the risk fund is up to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees 3 Lakhs only).
The complainant had stated in chief affidavit that after filing of this complaint the opposite party had taken necessary steps to obtain Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) from the risk fund and the amount was given to the complainant on 22/03/2024.
On the basis of the available evidence we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of June, 2024
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Cash payment receipt dated 17/03/2023
A2 - Cash payment receipt dated 26/10/2023
By Order,
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
