D.O.F:30/03/2021
D.O.O:10/01/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.79/2021
Dated this, the 10th day of January 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Yadhuraj. S,
S/o Suresh K.R,
Gokulam, Beembuugal, : Complainant
Bedadka POST,
Kasaragod- 671 124
(Adv. T.C.Narayanan)
And
Kerala Gramin Bank,
Kundamkuzhy,
Post- Kundamkuzhy : Opposite Party
Kasaragod- 671 541
(Adv. M. Narayana Bhat)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant filed under section 35 of consumer Protection Act is as follows:
Facts of the case:
- The complainant availed an Educational loan of Rs.1,76,000/-from opposite Party bank as per terms therein to study MSW course. The Opposite Party bank insisted surety for securing its re-payment. But Opposite Party is liable to sanction Educational loan without insisting surety. As per circular no minimum marks to be insisted, no margin amount, no security to be insisted.
- But despite the instructions, bank insisted surety as a security for re-payment of loan, Employee of Co-operative bank stood as surety. Loan is under default, steps for recovery of loan amount is insisted by opposite party. Recovery steps initiated against surety. Surety is insisted against guidelines issued by Government, relating to education loan aforesaid.
- Therefore there is Deficiency in service of the Opposite party, unfair trade practice, the complainant filed petition to Opposite Party to stop all recovery proceedings against the surety. But declined to consider the application. The complainant has no job and not able to pay the loan amount. There is unfair trade practice. The complainant sought relief to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.
- The Opposite Party filed a version denying the allegations. In particular circular of RBI dated 28/04/2021 is not correctly interpreted. It is only model guidelines. The Opposite Party sent a master circular dated 19/11/2013 and the Opposite party bank granted loan as per the circular. Notice is issued and steps are taken against the surety as per rules. The complainant is not entitled for any relief, no deficiency, no compensation payable and complaint may be dismissed with cost.
- The complainant did not produce any documentary evidence but adduced oral evidence by way of chief examination affidavit. The complainant was cross examined as Pw1. The opposite party produced Ext.B1 to B10 documents. The Complainant and opposite party filed argument notes.
The point for consideration based on the pleadings are as follows:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service, negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in sanctioning loan in accepting the surety ship of a bank employee and taking steps for recovery of loan amount on default, against complainant and the surety.
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensates if so, for what reliefs?
- The complainant in his evidence deposed that he executed Ext.B1 agreement and all other documents confronted to him by opposite party. He denied the suggestion that there is nothing wrong in accepting surety. He denied the suggestion that circular 2001 is not enforceable. He admitted surety Sukumaran has no grievance nor given any complaint to any authorities.
- The facts remains that educational loan agreement was signed by the parties including the surety as per Ext.B1 to B5 during the period of October 2015. Consumer complaint is filed in 2021 after six years. Ext.B7 postal receipt also dated 26/02/2021. Furthermore the surety did not raise any specific objection in signing the guarantee agreement, surety agreement till date. But Ext.B10 circular copy is produced and no challenge is made against the circular. In the absence of any objection raised at the time of signing of agreement in the year 2015 and the fact that the first time objection is raise in the year 2021 and surety himself has no objections in getting the signature as the surety and considering the nature and circumstances of the case both parties willingly signed the loan agreement, the complainant has withdrawn the loan amount spent for his education for four year study in MSW, completed his study and when the payment period starts he raises a complaint on after bank took legal action for recovery of amount due by the process of law. There is no bonefides in the contentions raised since suit os 330/2022 is pending on the file of Munsiff Court Kasaragod. The complainant takes up the case for an and behalf of the surety for whom there is absolutely no grievances. If really complainant or the surety has any grievance relating to any documentation while availing the loan they should have raised the objection in the year 2015 or immediately thereafter, but kept silent for the last more than 6 years and filing consumer complaint claiming when they were threatened with recovery proceedings is onlyan attempt to delay and defeat recovery of the amount due to the bank.
Thus there is no deficiency in service negligence or unfair trade practice and complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Therefore the complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
B1: Agreement for educational loans
B2: Agreement for educational loans
B3: Guarantee Agreement
B4: Application for educational loan
B5: Details of co-obligant / Guarantor offered for loans and their consent
B6: Copy of the letter written by Yadhuraj
B7: Copy of postal acknowledgment card
B8: Copy of loan sanction communication to borrowers/ co-obligants/ guarantors
B9: Master circular on educational loan scheme
B10: Copy of bank statement of account
Witness Cross-examined
Pw1: Yadhuraj.S
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
