DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 15/02/2021
CC/29/2021
K.K.Haridasan,
S/o.Kesavan,
Kodavamparambil Malappurathu veedu,
Kothachira – 679 535 - Complainant
(By Adv.Ms. Aswathy R.)
Vs
Kerala Gramin Bank,
Peringode Branch,
Pattambi Taluk – 679 535 - Opposite party
(By Adv. M/s.T.K.Suresh, A.P. Siji & Muhammed Azarudeen.)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Short grievance of the complainant is that he had availed an agricultural loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the O.P. Bank on 27/09/2019 for reduced interest rate. When he approached the O.P. immediately before the end of tenure, they informed him that the period had been extended owing to Covid-19 with the applicable interest rate of 4%. But later the O.P. raised demand for amounts applying higher interest rate of 9%. He believes that the O.P. had illegally charged him over Rs. 3000/-. Complaint is filed seeking return of Rs. 3000/- along with compensation.
- O.P. contested complaint pleadings and stated that the loan was availed as early as 03/10/2017 as Agricultural loan for 12% interest. Said loan was renewed on 29/09/2018 and 27/09/2019. After that the complainant failed to turn up. He renewed the loan on 30/12/2020 after contacting him continuously. The interest rate was never 4%. There was no extension of loan term. Complainant is not entitled to any interest subvention. Charges recovered from the complainant were the amounts that the Bank had incurred owing to delayed payment by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service whatsoever.
- Issues for consideration:
- Whether the loan account was of 2017 or 2019?
- What was the rate of interest applicable?
- Whether there is any other deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?
5. Any other Reliefs?
5. (i) Complainant filed Proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 and A2.
(ii) OP filed proof affidavit, but did not adduce any documentary evidence.
Issue No.1
6. Complainant’s case is that he had availed an agricultural loan on 27/09/2019 for Rs. 50,000/-. O.P.s stoutly contested this in their pleadings stating that the loan was availed on 03/10/2017.
7. In order to substantiate this fact, the only evidence available before us are Exts. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is a counter-foil of a pay-in slip dated 31/12/2020 for KCC 1282.Ext. A2 is the Original pass book in the name of the complainant. Relevant facts that can be assimilated from a perusal of Ext. A2 are as follows:
1. Name of A/c holder :: Haridasan K.K.
2. Scheme code :: KCC01
3. Account No. :: 40704131001282
4. Loan amount :: Rs. 50,000/-
5. Open date :: 03/10/2017
6. Expiry date :: 27/09/2020
8. Perusal of Exts. A1 and A2 would show that contrary to the assertions made by the complainant, the loan account was started in the year 2017 and not 2019.
Issue No.2
9. Apropos the finding in Issue No.1, we are not able to appreciate the pleadings of the complainant that he had availed a loan during 2019 and that the rate of interest is 4%. Furthermore, a duty was imposed on the complainant to prove his case by production of documents to prove that the rate of interest is 4%.
Having failed to discharge his burden of proof, we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the rate of interest was 4% as alleged by him and that additional interest was charged. Daily entries in Ext. A2 are so widely placed, in fact, months apart, so that the entries are congruous to the pleadings raised by the O.P. We therefore presume that the balance of convenience is in favour of the O.P.
Issue No.3
10. Resultantly, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
Issue No.4 & 5
11. Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
12. A perusal of the pleadings and documents would go far to show that the complainant was aware of the entire business transactions. Documents produced by him shows that the loan was taken as early as 2017 and not during 2019. Complainant is a businessman with other loan accounts. Thus he is not someone ignorant about banking transactions. He is aware of the loan terms and the rate of interest. Therefore, this complaint, in the given set of pleadings, is an abuse of the process of law.
13. Consequently we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the complainant, payable to the O.P. within 45 days from receipt of a copy of this Order.
14. Complaint is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 26th day of June, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext. A1: Original is a counter-foil of a pay-in slip dated 31/12/2020.
Ext. A2: Original pass book
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: 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 will be weeded out.
