Kerala

Idukki

CC/150/2020

Selvan s - Complainant(s)

Versus

kerala bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv:T G Rajeesh

22 Jun 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :5.11.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  22^nd  day of June, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.150/2020

Between

Complainant                                           :   Selvan S.,

                                                                  Paliyakudy House,

                                                                  Painavu P.O.,

                                                                                Idukki.

         (By Adv: T.G. Ragesh)

And

Opposite Parties                                      :  1. The General Manager,

                                                                    Kerala Bank,

                                                                    Kottayam.

       2.  The Manager,

                                                                     Kerala Bank,

                                                                     Main Branch, Kattappana.

 (Both by Adv: C.K. Babu)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

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

 

First opposite party is General Manger of Kerala Bank, Kottayam and 2^nd opposite party is Manager of the same bank having its branch at Kattappana.  Complainant had earlier taken a loan of Rs.1 lakhs from the bank represented by opposite parties, which was later renewed as a loan  for  Rs.80,000/- on 15.3.2016.  Complainant had not received any intimation that, amount early remitted in the old loan of Rs.1 lakh was credited to the renewed loan.  First loan was to be repaid in 36 equated monthly instalments. Complainant had remitted Rs.48,000/- towards repayment of earlier loan. It was given credit to, in the renewed loan of Rs.80,000/- as on 15.3.2016.  2^nd loan was suomoto advanced by 2^nd opposite party.  Complainant had remitted Rs.37,000/- towards repayment of renewed loan.  Opposite parties have not given reductions and benefits                                                                                                                  (cont….2)

• 2  -

declared by  Government from time to time to customers who had availed similar loans from banks.  Complainant has not been informed about compound interest, penal interest and interest as such charged upon his loan. Without giving due benefits towards reduction of interest rates, compound interest, penal interest and that of moratorium as declared by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, opposite parties are taking speedy steps to recover the loan, for which they are not entitled to. Complainant submitted that he had received notice dated 5.10.2020 from 2^nd opposite party, whereby he has been directed to repay the loan amount without any benefits at all.  Hence complainant prays for grant of statement of account relating to the 2^nd loan of Rs.80,000/- to him from 2^nd opposite party.  He also prays for grant of all benefits due to his loan from bank.  A compensation of Rs.10,000/- is also claimed as damages for deficiency in service sustained by complainant and litigation cost as deemed fit by this Commission.

 

2.  Second opposite party has filed a written version  for and on behalf of 1^st opposite party also.  Case of opposite parties is briefly narrated hereunder :

 

According to them, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  There is no cause of action for  complaint.  Petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.80,000/- from bank represented by opposite party on 15.3.2016.  There was no renewal of any earlier loan.  No adjustments are seen made towards repayment of earlier loan.  Loan granted on 15.3.2016 was not meant for an adjustment of earlier loan. It is quite true that the Government has declared benefits of One Time Settlement Scheme.  However, if the loanee wants to avail the benefits of scheme, he would have to abide by the conditions of the scheme.  On 5.10.2020, bank had issued a notice to complainant informing him of OTS scheme which the complainant could abide of, but he had not applied for the same.  He is a defaulter since 1.3.2020.  There is no moratorium for this loan.  Despite repeated demands and notices, complainant has not cleared the loan arrears.  Intention of the complainant is to circumvent  proceedings for recovery and to evade payment of loan.  Complaint is an experimental one and it is to be dismissed with cost. 

 

3. After filing of written version, case was posted repeatedly for evidence and that too after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides for taking steps.  Complainant was continuously absent on all occasions and had sought for time through his counsel.  Since he was not prepared to give evidence as no steps to summon any witness or documents were seen filed till 31.5.2022, the last date for giving evidence, complainant evidence was closed on that date.  There was no representation for the complainant either. Counsel for opposite party submits that as complainant had not given any evidence, opposite party are not giving  evidence and hence evidence was closed.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :                                                                                            (cont…3)

-  3  -

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

2)  Whether complaint is maintainable ?

3) Reliefs and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together for the sake of convenience :

 

          There is nothing in the complaint  read along with the documents produced, which constitutes cause of action  enabling the complainant to file a complaint of this nature.  All the complaint averments are to the effect  that opposite parties have not granted him benefits of various schemes for reduction of interest rate striking off of compound and penal interest along with facility of moratorium declared by Government and Reserve Bank of India from time to time.  There are no specific pleadings that any specific facility granted or benefit declared by Government was not granted to complainant.  Nothing was produced to show that complainant had elected to choose any OTS Schemes or had claimed any other benefit which was declared at any point of time by relevant authorities.  Pleadings are  vague in this respect and this appears to be the reason for the continued absence of complainant.  Apparently, he himself is not sure of his case.  There is nothing in the complaint to show that there was deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties while rendering banking service to complainant.  Therefore, we find that the complaint as such is not maintainable.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 

 

5.  Point No.3 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed, considering the circumstances, without costs.

 

                 Pronounced by this Commission on this  the   22^nd  day of June, 2022

                                                                                      Sd/-

  SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                             Sd/-

 SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                   Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

Appendix : Nil.

                                                                                   Forwarded by Order,

 

                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR