Kerala

Idukki

CC/24/2020

Soosamma Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kerala co-operative development and Welfare fund board - Opp.Party(s)

Avd: Lissy M M

30 Apr 2021

ORDER

 

 

DATE OF FILING : 30/01/2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of April 2021

Present :

SMT.ASAMOL P. PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO. 24/2020

Between

Complainant : Soosamma Raju,

Kappyaruparambil House,

Muthukunnu, Mundakayam East.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . Kerala Co-Operative Development and

Welfare Fund Board, Regional office Kottayam,

Vaakathanam, Kottayam – 686 533.

(By Adv:Anitha K.)

2 . The Peerumedu Taluk Co-Operative Agricultural

and Rural Development bank Ltd.,

No.1-273 Elapara P.O., Mundakayam East – 281 085,

Represented by its Secretary.

 

(Cont.....2)

-2-

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Allegations of the complainant are as follows.

 

1 . The complainant is residing in the above shown address with his family. The complainant is a house wife.

 

2 . The 1^st opposite party is the risk fund officer appointed under the Kerala Co-Operative Development Welfare Board. The 2^nd opposite party is the Secretary of the Peermedu Taluk Agricultural Co-Operative Bank.

 

3 . The complainant’s husband availed a loan from the 2^nd opposite party bank. The loan No.354/MNBH is for Rs.1,50,000/- for years.

 

4 . While availing the loan the complainant’s husband was compulsorily joined in the risk fund scheme by the 2^nd opposite party and deducted the fees for the risk fund by the 2^nd opposite party.

 

5 . At the time of availing the loan the complainant’s husband was not suffering from any diseases. After one year of availing the loan from the 2^nd opposite party, due to throat pain, the complainant’s husband has admitted in Krishna Hospital Ernakulam. After the medical examination the doctor diagnosed the complainant’s husband is suffering from lungs cancer. On 08/04/2019 due to lungs cancer the complainant’s husband died. After the death of the complainant’s husband, the complainant claimed the risk fund benefit. However the 1^st opposite party has repudiated the claim for the reason that the loan was due at the time of death of the complainant’s husband.

 

6 . At the time of joining the scheme there were no such conditions in the scheme and hence the complainant is not bound by the condition. The condition No.5 itself is vague and could not be interpreted such a way also.

-3-

7 . The non-payment of the money as per the risk fund is gross deficiency in service and hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the money. The complainant to get Rs.1,50,000/- in the loan.

 

8 . Due to the non-payment of the claim amount the complainant suffered severe financial difficulties and hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the delay in payment.

 

9 . The cause of action for the complaint arose on 24/10/2019 and continuously thereafter in Mundakkayyam Kara, in Idukki District within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Commission.

 

10 . The relief valued at less than Rs.2 Lakhs and no fee is payable.

 

11 . It is hence respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to grant the following reliefs to the complainant.

 

a . The opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for the loan number as risk fund benefits to the complainant.

 

b . The opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for the complainant.

 

c . The opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.

 

d . Such other relief and deemed just and equitable also may be granted.

 

 

(Cont.....4)

 

-4-

 

7 . The non-payment of the money as per the risk fund is gross deficiency in service and hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the money. The complainant to get Rs.1,50,000/- in the loan.

 

8 . Due to the non-payment of the claim amount the complainant suffered severe financial difficulties and hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the delay in payment.

 

9 . The cause of action for the complaint arose on 24/10/2019 and continuously thereafter in Mundakkayyam Kara, in Idukki District within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Commission.

 

10 . The relief valued at less than Rs.2 Lakhs and no fee is payable.

 

11 . It is hence respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to grant the following reliefs to the complainant.

 

a . The opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for the loan number as risk fund benefits to the complainant.

 

b . The opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for the complainant.

 

c . The opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.

 

d . Such other relief and deemed just and equitable also may be granted.

 

 

-5-

We have examined the contentions and documents produced by the complainant and also the memo filed by the second opposite party. As per S.3 of CP Act 1986, there is no bar on jurisdiction of this Commission for deciding the complaint. Hence the contention of the second opposite party is unsustainable.

 

The point for consideration is,

 

1. 1. 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief under above

         scheme?

1. 1. 2. Whether the reliefs prayed for are allowable?

 

Point.1

On a perusal of para 4(a) of Ext.P5, it is seen that complainant is entitled for the scheme benefits. In this, it is stated that if the borrower died during the pending of loan period, balance amount pending on the date of death subject to the limit of Rs.1.50 lakhs with interest thereon will be given from the fund. As per Ext.P4, reason stated by the first opposite party for repudiating the claim is “since the dues are continuously pending for more than six months, complainant is not entitled to the benefits under the scheme”.

 

But no convincing documents were produced by the opposite parties to substantiate their decision.

 

In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the reason stated by them.

 

In the above circumstances, we find that the complainant is entitled to benefits under the scheme. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

(Cont.....6)

-6-

Point No.2

 

Since we found that complainant is entitled to the benefits under the scheme, following reliefs are allowed to the complainant.

 

1 . Opposite parties are directed to give relief under the scheme in respect of balance amount payable under the loan with interest thereon subject to the limit prescribed in the scheme to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order.

 

2 . Since we ordered to give relief under the scheme and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are declined to allow the claim for compensation.

 

3 . Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards costs of the case.

 

In the result, complaint is allowed to the above extent.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 30^th day of April, 2021.

 

 

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. , PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

-7-

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Death certificate dated 05/05/2019 issued by Kokkayar Grama

Panchayath in respect of death of one Raju Ouseph.

Ext.P2 - Medical certificate dated 11/05/2018 issued from Krishna Hospital,

Ernakulam.

Ext.P3 - Pass book in respect of loan number 354/MNBH.

Ext.P4 - Letter dated 24/10/2019 issued by the second opposite party

repudiating the application of complainant under Risk Fund Scheme

stating that the first opposite party repudiated the claim on the

ground of pending of dues for more than 6 months. Hence no

benefit would be available under the scheme.

Ext.P5 – Copy of the Kerala Co-Operative Debt Relief Scheme /

Co-Operative Risk Fund Scheme.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 

 

(Cont.....4)

(Cont.....3)

​