DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day of November 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 02.04.2019
CC/135/2019
Hussainkutty P.T
S/o Moideenkutty. P
Pavurathody House
Edappal Road, Thrithala Post,
Palakkad
(By Adv. Dhannjayan and Adv. Shahul Hameed ) - Complainant
Vs
1. Kerala Gramin Bank , KGB Towers,
A.K Road, Uphill, PB No.10, Malappuram
Kerala, India, Pin-675 505
2. Kerala Gramin Bank , KGB Towers,
A.K Road, Uphill, PB No.10, Malappuram
Keraal, India, Pin-675 505
Represented By its manager/Managing director/
Authorised Signatory.
3. Branch Manager, kerala Gramin Bank
Koottanad, 1st Floor, Ramachandra Building,
P.O Koottanad, Palakkad Distt. 679533
( By Adv. S.T. Suresh - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
The complainant has availed an agricultural loan A/c No. KCC/ 01/40280131004942 from the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the year 2015 and subsequently renewed it for 2 years. As per the existing law, the borrower has to pay the entire loan amount each year with interest at the rate of 4% per annum and has to close the loan within a period of one year. The rate of interest at the time of closing the loan is 7% per annum and later the subsidy of 3% will be returned to the account of the borrower.
The complainant paid the loan amount with interest for the years 2015-2016, 2016- 2017 and the bank re-credited the 3% interest as agricultural subsidy in his account. But for the period 2017-2018 even though the complainant remitted the entire amount, the opposite party Bank took 11.5% interest which is illegal. Inorder to get clarification, he filed an application, to furnish his statement of account; but the opposite party bank did not furnish the information sought by him. The act of the opposite party amounts to Unfair Trade Practice. Complainant was prompt in repayment of the loan with interest and the conduct of the opposite party in collecting exorbitant rate of interest ie 11.5% per annum without intimating the complainant is clear deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is legally entitled to get the excess amount collected by the bank.
The complainant had caused issuance of lawyer notice dated 22.10.2018 for which the opposite party sent a reply through their counsel raising untenable contentions. Their contention is that the loan was overdue since January 2017. The computer system calculated the interest at the rate of 11.5% and the staff of the opposite party intimated the about his ineligibility for interest subvention and the complainant was fully convinced about this. (Such contentions taken by them are totally incorrect and denied.)
So this complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to refund the excess amount of 7% interest collected in the agricultural loan as against that of 4% which they are legally entitled to collect and direct the opposite parties to furnish exact calculation statement regarding the agricultural loan and to furnish the regulations and guidelines issued by the Government of India regarding the same. The complainant also prays for a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony suffered by him for the unfair practices adopted by them and to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The main contentions raised by the opposite parties in their version is as follows:-
They admit that the complainant has availed KCC Agricultural cash credit on 12.01.2015. Subsequently he renewed the loan on 12.01.2016 and availed interest subvention. The next due date for the renewal of the account was on 12.01.2017 and the account become overdue on 13.01.2017. The complainant approached the bank on 17.01.2017 for renewal of the loan and since it was during demonetisation period, the complainant was not able to pay the entire amount for closing /renewal of loan and he opted to pay interest only. He deposited Rs. 5100/- to his savings account and transferred Rs. 5065/- to the KCC account as interest portion on the same day. As he was ineligible for interest subvention, system calculated interest at the rate of 11.5%. Further the staff of opposite party bank instructed him to come for loan renewal with original tax paid receipt next month itself. But he visited the branch only on 08.01.2018 for renewal. As the renewal could not be done within the stipulated period, the loan became overdue since 2017. The complainant had renewed the loan account only on 08.01.2018.
They denied the contention in the complaint regarding the filing of application of by the complainant for obtaining statement of accounts and non-furnishing of it by the opposite parties. They contended that the complainant did not file any application for statement of accounts; he made only a request over the phone. The customer’s written request is mandatory as the account statements are chargable and has to be preserved for future reference. Eventhough the staff instructed him to come to the branch with written request, he did not turn up.
There is no Deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to receive back the amount from the Bank. For the lawyer notice sent by the complainant’s counsel, reply was sent stating true and correct facts. The opposite parties have acted within the framework stipulated in the Banking sector. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and it has to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite parties.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for
consideration.
1. Whether the opposite parties had collected excess amount of interest from
the complainant?
2. Whether there is any Deficiency in service/ Unfair Trade practice on the part
of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs as cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed Proof affidavit in evidence and Exhibit A1 to A5 marked (Exhibit A3 objected) . Opposite party also filed Proof affidavit and Exhibit B1 marked. Evidence closed. Heard and taken for orders.
Point No.1
6. As per the pleadings of the complainant, he availed an agricultural loan from the opposite party bank in the year 2015 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and subsequently it was renewed for another two years. His contention is that as per law, the borrower has to pay the entire loan amount with interest at the rate of 4% each year and at the time of closing of the loan, the bank would take 7% interest and later the 3% interest in the loan which is given as subsidy by the Government would be re-credited to the account of the borrower. He added that for the years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 the bank credited the interest subsidy to his account. But for the period 2017-2018 eventhough he had remitted the entire loan amount, the opposite party bank took Rs. 55,938/- from him. ie they have taken an interest of 11.5% which is illegal.
The complainant produced the cash receipt dated 08.01.2018 issued by the opposite party bank for an amount of Rs. 55,938/- which is marked as Exhibit A2.
7. The opposite party admitted that the complainant has availed KCC Agricultural loan on 12.01.2015 and renewed the loan on 12.01.2016 and availed the interest subvention for that period. The new due date for renewal of the loan is on 12.01.2017 for that period and the account became overdue on 13.01.2017. The complainant approached the bank for renewal of the loan on 17.01.2017 and since it was demonetisation period, he could not pay the entire loan and paid only the interest. He transferred Rs. 5065/- from his saving account to the KCC Account as the interest on the same day. Since he has not repaid the loan amount in time, he is ineligible for the interest subvention and bank deducted interest at the rate of 11.5% from him. The complainant renewed his loan account only on 08.01.2018.
8. The opposite parties produced the Loan account statement of the complainant with A/c No. 40280131004942 which is marked as Exhibit B1. From Exhibit B1, It can be seen that on 12.01.2016, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 52,670/- towards the Loan on 17.01.2017 an amount of Rs.5065/- is transferred to the loan account and the next transaction for Rs. 55,938/- is on 08.01.2018.
9. The shows that the complainant had promptly repaid the loan amount with interest for the period 2015-2016 and he got interest subsidy. But there was no repayment on 12.01.2017 instead he paid Rs.5065/- on 17.01.2017. This is the interest of the loan as per the opposite party which appears to be correct. His next payment was on 08.01.2018. So the loan is due from 13.01.2017 onwards. As per law, the interest subvention is available only in the case of prompt repayment. If the complainant had properly repaid the amount within 12.01.2017, he is eligible for the interest subvention of 3%.So it is seen that the opposite party did not collect any excess amount of interest from the complainant. Point No.1 is decided accordingly
10. Points 2 to 4
So we conclude that as per the law, 3% subvention is given to the farmers for prompt and timely repayment of loans. From the documents produced, it is seen that the complainant had not repaid the loan for the period 2016-17 promptly. So he is not entitled to get the benefit of interest subvention. There is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party in collecting interest at the rate of 11.5 %.
11. Another grievance of the complainant is that the opposite bank did not provide him with the account statement even after his request. The opposite party’s contention is that the complainant made a request through phone and since the account statement is chargeable and required for future reference, they asked him to give a written request; but he did not turn up.
12. The complainant produced a letter send by him to the bank, requesting the statement of accounts. Marking of this documents Exhibit A3 is objected to by the opposite parties on the ground that “ It is a photocopy of a letter alleged to be issued to the opposite party by the complainant, but it is unaccompanied by any other documents to show its issuance.” The complainant did not make any attempt to prove this. So the document cannot be admitted in evidence.
In the result, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open court on this the 21st day of November, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Receipt issued by the Opposite parties for the remittance of Rs. 52,670/-
dated. 12.01.2016.(Original)
Ext.A2 – Receipt issued by the Opposite parties for the remittance of Rs. 55,938/-
dated .08.01.2018.(Original)
Ext.A3 – Xerox copy of the application given by the complainant to the Opposite
(Objected) (Parties to furnish him with the statement of accounts
dated.15.02.2018.
Ext.A4 – Copy of Lawyer notice issued by counsel of the Complainant to the
Opposite Parties dated 22.10.2018.
Ext.A5 – Reply notice sent by counsel of the Opposite Parties date. 21.11.2018.
(Original)
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Loan Account Statement of Account No.40280131004942 Kept by
Opposite Party Bank (Attested true copy)
Witness examined on the side of the complainant - Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party - Nil
Cost . Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in
the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer
Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing
which they be weeded out.
