Kerala

Idukki

CC/33/2021

Pushpan E K - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Adv: K B Selvam

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING : 10.2.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 23^rd Day of February, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.33/2021

Between

Complainant : Pushpan E.K.

Elavumkunnel House

Thopramkudy P.O.

Vathikudy 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 Thopramkudy

Branch)

Thopramkudy P.O., Idukki.

(Both by Adv: C.K. Babu)

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case was taken on file, upon a complaint filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short). Complainant averments are briefly discussed here under :

 

2. Complainant is an agricultural labourer. He had availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from opposite parties. 1^st opposite party is Deputy Manager of Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Idukki Village and 2^nd opposite party is (cont….2)

- 2 -

Manager of the same bank having its branch in Vathikkudy Village of Idukki District. There were repeated crop failures during the last 2 years owing to flood and spread of Covid pandemic. Hence complainant was unable to repay the loan. Government had, however, by this time declared moratorium against recovery of all loans. Despite this opposite parties had sent notices demanding loan dues. Though complainant had requested the opposite parties to give him instalment facility, opposite parties had refused to do so. They had threatened that CIBIL score of complainant will be lowered. While so, complainant had received an adalath notice on01/10/2020. However complainant’s case was not considered for/in adalath though he had approached opposite parties for the same and informed them he will pay the dues arrived at in adalath. On 8.2.2021, opposite parties had threatened to take legal steps for recovery, if the loan amount is not paid along with interest. Complainant is facing severe financial crunch. There is deficiency in service given by opposite parties. Complainant is suffering mental agony owing to this. He prays for a direction against opposite parties to grant him more time for repayment of loan and arrears. He also prays for restraining opposite parties from proceedings with recovery of loan, a direction to reduce rate of interest and also for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the sufferings underwent by complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 

3. Both opposite parties have entered appearance. 2^nd opposite party had filed written version on behalf of 1^st opposite party al. Their case is briefly narrated here under :

 

4. According to opposite parties, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts. There are no allegations of any deficiency in service and therefore, there is no cause of action for this case. Complainants have availed loan of Rs.3,36,500/- from opposite parties on 16.3.2018. As on 8.3.2021, loan dues will total to Rs.4,72,758/-. From 1.3.2020 onwards, complainant is a defaulter. Despite repeated request and demands, loan arrears were not cleared by him. There is no moratorium for this loan. Request for repayment made in person and issuance of notice are only usual procedures adopted to avoid taking of coercive steps. Intention of complainant is to circumvent legal proceedings for recovery and wriggle out from the liability of repaying loan amount. Complaint is experimental in nature and same is to be dismissed with costs.

 

5. Case was then posted for evidence repeatedly after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides for steps. Complainant has not tendered any evidence despite availing of repeated adjournments for the same. No steps were taken, nor were any witnesses produced, summoned and examined. Hence (cont….3)

- 3 -

complainant’s evidence was closed. Opposite parties have not tendered any evidence as there was no evidence from the side of complainant. Able counsel for opposite parties had made submissions on these lines, hence evidence was closed. No contentions were addressed with regard to merits of the case by the able junior of counsel for complainant who was representing him. Learned counsel for opposite parties submitted that there is no cause of action for the complaint. Hence even if any evidence were to be there by complainant, same would have been of no use. Now the Points which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether complainants are entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

2) Order as to costs ?

 

6. Point No.1 :

 

We have gone through the pleadings addressed by complainant and the only document on their side, being adalath intimation issued by opposite parties, carefully. Though complainant says that a moratorium was declared by Govt. against recovery of all loans, there was no attempt to prove this by production or seeking production of said Govt. order. It is common knowledge that moratorium, if any, declared was only for a limited period. Complainant has not specifically pleaded that his loan was covered by moratorium and that recovery was attempted during the period when moratorium order was in force. Complainant has no case that as per loan agreement he is entitled to get facility of instalment payment for repayment. He has not stated what is the rate of interest charged or that interest demanded is not as per the rate mentioned in the loan agreement or illegal. Hence prayer for reducing rate of interest also has no factual or legal foundation. In short, main prayers by the complainant are only for extention of time to repay the loan and also for reduction in the rate of interest. There are no pleadings by complainant to the effect that he is entitled for this facility as of right and there was no attempt to tender evidence in this regard either. That being so, prayer for extension of time to repay the loan amount and direction to reduce rate of interest cannot be allowed. Hence prayers for compensation and litigation costs will also have to be declined along with the earlier prayers mentioned above. Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

7. Point No.2 :

 

In view of our findings on Point No.1, the only order to be passed is dismissal of the complaint. Since costs follow event, we find no reason to decline the cost of opposite parties which according to us, upon a fair estimate (cont….4)

 

• 4 -

 

will be Rs.2000/-. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed with litigation cost of Rs.2000/- payable to opposite parties by complainant. All interim orders of stay/injunctions granted shall stand vacated.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 23^rd 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