Kerala

Idukki

CC/32/2021

Kuttappayi varkey - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Adv: K B Selvam

25 Feb 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 10.2.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 25^th Day of February, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.32/2021

Between

Complainant : Kuttappayi Varkey,

Palathinkal House

Amaravathy P.O.

Kumily Village

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.B. Selvam)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Deputy General Manager,

Kerala State Co-operative Bank,

(Former Idukki District

Co-operative Bank)

Idukki.

2. The Manager,

Kerala State Co-operative Bank,

(Former IDCB Murickassery

Branch)

Murickassery P.O., Idukki.

(Both by Adv: C.K. Babu)

3. Ambili Alex,

Vazheparambil House,

Thopramkudy P.O.,

Idukki District.

4. Alex Abraham,

Vazheparambil House,

Thopramkudy P.O., Idukki District.

 

 

(cont....2)

• 2 -

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short). Complaint averments are briefly discussed here under :

 

2. Complainant is a farmer. 1^st opposite party is Deputy Manager of Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Idukki Village and 2^nd opposite party is Manager of Murickassery branch of same bank. Complainant along with 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties had taken OLCC loan from 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Complainant has submitted patta of his property as security for the said loan. He is a surety also. Though 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties had agreed that they will repay the loan amount without any default. Owing to flood and Covid 19 situation, they could not pay the loan installments. Loan amount was entirely utilized by them for their business and agricultural purposes. During the times of pandemic, Government had declared moratorium for all loans. However, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have sent demand notices to 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties for recovery of loan amount and dues. Though 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties had informed 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties that they are willing to repay the loan amount in stages and had remitted Rs.25,000/- towards loan dues. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not responded to the request made by 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties. On 8.1.2021, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties received demand notice from 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties towards recovery of the loan dues. However, complainant was purposely not given any demand notice. On 4.2.2021, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had approached the complainant and threatened that if entire loan amount is not paid, steps will be taken to recover the dues by proceeding against his property without any further notice. Complainant was also informed that his CIBIL score will be lowered. Complainant had suffered mental agony and irreparable loss owing to aforesaid acts of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. There is deficiency in service on their part. Hence complainant prays for a direction against 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties not to proceed against his property and to proceed against 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties for clearance of arrears. He also prays for Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs.

 

3. Complaint was taken on file and upon notice, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have appeared and filed joint written version. Their contentions are briefly discussed here under :

 

(cont….3)

- 3 -

4. According to them, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts. There is no deficiency in service. No cause of action is there to sustain the complaint. They would submit that petitioner had availed OLCC loan of Rs.8 lakhs on 28.3.2014 from opposite parties. As on 31.3.2021, outstanding amount is Rs.9,72,460/-. Complainant is a defaulter since 31.3.2019. In spite of repeated requests and demands, liability has not been cleared by him. There is no moratorium for this loan. Personal requests and issuance of notices are usual procedures connected with recovery of arrears. There is no illegality in making such requests or sending of notices. Intention of complainant is to stall recovery proceedings and to wriggle out of the liability. Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties have not appeared, despite service of registered notice. Hence after filing of written version by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, case was posted for evidence, after given sufficient opportunity for taking steps. Though repeated opportunities were availed by complainant, no evidence was tendered by him. Able counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that, since there is no evidence from the side of complainant, opposite parties also are not tendering any evidence. Hence evidence was closed. Able Junior counsel attached to the office of learned counsel for complainant has addressed arguments on behalf of complainant. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 and 2 was heard in reply. Now Points which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether complainant is entitled for any of the relief claimed in the complaint ?

2) Order as to costs ?

 

5. Point No.1 :

 

As per complaint averments, complainant is only a surety for the loan availed by 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties, from 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. That being so, it cannot be said that complainant is a consumer in connection with the banking service given by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. If complaint averments are persumed as true, opposite parties 3 and 4 are the persons who can be considered as consumers, in case of any deficiency in service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Complaint would reveal that main grievance of complainant is that 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are proceeding against him instead of proceeding against opposite parties 3 and 4, who are the principal debtors. Complainant claims to be a surety for the debt of O.P’s 3 and 4. Ordinarily, liability of the surety is joint and several along with that of principal debtor. Nothing was produced by the complainant to show that there is a contract to the contrary where by opposite parties 1 and 2 had agreed to spare his properties if the principal debtor is possessed of sufficient property and income to clear the arrears. Complainant has not deposed about (cont….4)

• 4 -

any deficiency in service provided by opposite parties 1 and 2. Therefore, complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

6. Point No.2 :

 

In the result, we find that this complaint is only to be dismissed. We find no reason from deviating from the rule of cost following the events. This complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/- in total payable by the complainant to the Bank represented by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Interim Injunction / Stay granted shall stand vacated.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 25^th day of February, 2022

 

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

Appendix : Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT