Kerala

Idukki

CC/30/2021

Ajeesh Sukumaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kerala state Co- operative bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv: K B Selvam

07 Jul 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :10/02/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 7^th day of July 2022

Present :

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.30/2021

Between

Complainant : Ajeesh Sukumaran,

Kilikkattuthottathil House,

Thopramkudy P.O., Vathikudy Village,

Idukki District.

(By Adv.K.B.Selvam)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Deputy General Manager,

Kerala State Co-Operative Bank,

(Former Idukki District Co-Operative Bank),

Idukki Village, Idukki District, Idukki Colony P.O.

2 . The Manager,

Kerala State Co-Operative Bank,

(Former IDCB Thopramkudy Branch),

Thopramkudy P.O.

(Both by Adv.C.K.Babu)

 

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

Allegations of the complainant are as under:-

.
1 . Complainant availed a business loan of Rs.20 Lakhs from opposite parties in 2016. It was renewed up to last financial year. He submitted original patta of land as security.

 

2 . He had to spent huge amount for his father's treatment. Business was also a failure for last two years due to flood and covid 19. Though government declared moratorium, opposite parties demanded entire amount.

 

 

(Cont....2)

-2-

3 . As agreed by opposite parties, he was remitting Rs.500/- per day to his loan account. On 03/02/2021, complainant approached opposite parties and requested for some more time to clear the arrears and they agreed for the same. But on 08/02/2021 opposite parties came to the house of complainant and threatened him to remit entire amount within 15 days, failing which they will take steps to recover the properties of him without further notice.

 

4 . Complainant had to suffer irreparable mental agony. Non-issuance of demand notice is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and he has to be compensated. Hence he prayed for following reliefs.

 

1 . Opposite parties may be directed to give some more time to clear arrears and restrained them from taking recovery steps.

 

2 . Direct them to reduce rate of interest of loan.

 

3 . Grant Rs.5000/- as costs and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for his sufferings and such other relief as deemed fit in the ends of justice.

 

Complainant produced copy of following.

 

1 . Account statement in the name of Sreeja Sukukaran (joint holder) from March 2018 to March 2020 with the opposite parties bank.

 

2 . Original loan challan dated 25/03/2021 in the name of Ajeesh Sukumaran.

 

Second opposite party filed written version for both opposite parties as follows.

 

The complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. There is no allegation of any defect or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. There is no cause of action in this case. Hence the case has to be dismissed in-limine.

 

(Cont....3)

 

-3-

 

Para 1 to 4 are not fully correct hence denied. It is true that the petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.20 Lakhs on 04/03/2016 from the opposite parties. As on 08/03/2021 there is an outstanding of Rs.23,73,250/-. The complainant is a defaulter as on 01/03/2020. In spite of repeated requests and demands to repay the loan outstanding the complainant did not care to oblige. There is no moratorium for this loan. This bank always takes abundant caution to avoid coercive steps for which issuance of notice and personal request to close the loan are usual procedures. It is true that the complainant remitted Rs.500/- on daily collection scheme. All other averments contrary to the above are false hence denied. The cunning idea of this complainant is to circumvent the legal proceedings for recovery and to wriggle out from repaying the loan amount. This petition is experimental.

 

The opposite parties are dragged in for an unnecessary litigation. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

 

Counsel for opposite parties submitted that complaint does not disclose a cause of action and it is not maintainable. Hence matter is posted for hearing on maintainability on many days. But complainant's counsel either seeks time or is not represented. On 14/06/2022 also, complainant was not present and counsel seeks more time. As no satisfactory reason is stated for the prayer, it was declined and heard the counsel for opposite parties.

 

His main allegation is that complainant has not made out cause of action for filing the complaint and it is only to drag on the recovery proceedings against the complainant. Complainant is a heavy defaulter of business loan amount and it is permitted to recover loan arrears through due process of law. As the loan is availed for business purpose, it is commercial purpose, so complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Delay in disposing the case causes difficulties to opposite parties for initiating recovery steps. He prayed for dismissing the complaint with costs of opposite parties.

 

 

(Cont....4)

 

-4-

 

As the counsel for opposite parties raised the contention regarding maintainability, it is heard as preliminary issue. On a perusal of complaint, it is seen that complainant availed a business loan and remittance of instalments were not made in time. Complainant has not made out a case about deficiency in service. On going through the prayer, it is seen that he seeks for more time to remit the loan arrears and to reduce the rate of interest of loan. But complainant has not stated the reason for reducing the interest.

 

As the loan is for commercial purpose and no cause of action is made out, we are of the considered view that complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Hence the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable, however without any order as to costs.

 

In the result, complaint is dismissed as above.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 7^th day of July 2022.

 

 

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Nil

 

 

Forwarded by Order

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR