Kerala

Idukki

CC/34/2021

Soumya Ajeesh - 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.34/2021

Between

Complainants : 1. Soumya Ajeesh,

Kilikkattuthottathil House,

Thopramkudy P.O.,

Vathikkudy, Idukki.

2. Ajeesh Sukumaran,

Kilikkattuthottathil House,

Thopramkudy P.O.,

Vathikkudy, Idukki.

(Both 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 ThopramkudyBranch)

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, on the basis of a complaint filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short). Complainant averments are briefly discussed here under : (cont….2)

- 2 -

2. First complainant is the wife of 2^nd complainant. 1^st complainant had availed a loan from opposite parties for promotion of agricultural crops. 2^nd complainant is surety for the loan. Loan amount was Rs.2 lakhs. 1^st opposite party is Deputy Manager of Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Idukki Village and 2^nd opposite party is Manager of the same bank having its branch in Vathikkudy Village of Idukki District. After availing loan, 1^stcomplainant had to spent substantial amounts for the treatment of her father. Apart from this, there were repeated crop failures during the last 2 years owing to flood and spread of Covid pandemic. Hence complainants were unable to repay the loan. They had requested the opposite parties to give them instalment facility. However, opposite parties refused to do so. They had threatened that CIBIL score of complainants will be lowered and had sent legal notice dated 29.1.2021 seeking repayment of loan amount with interest. Total dues are Rs.2,53,245/-. Complainants are facing financial crunch. They required more time to clear arrears. Though opposite parties had agreed orally toextend time, they had gone back on their promise and on 8.2.2021, they had threatened to take legal steps for recovery, if the loan amount is not paid along with interest. Complainants are suffering mental agony owing to this. They pray for direction against opposite parties to give them more time for payment of loan arrears. They also pray for restraining opposite parties from proceedings with recovery of loan, a direction to reduce rate of interest and also for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the sufferings underwent by them along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

 

3. Both opposite parties have entered appearance. 2^nd opposite party had filed written version on behalf of 1^st opposite party also. 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.2 lakhs from opposite parties on 29.3.2018. As on 8.3.2021, loan dues will total to Rs.2,44,603/-. As on 1.3.2020, complainants are defaulters. Despite repeated request and demands, loan arrears were not cleared by them. 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 complainants is to circumvent legal proceedings for recovery and wriggle out from the liability ofrepaying 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. Complainants have not tendered any evidence despite (cont….3)

- 3 -

 

availing repeated adjournments for the same. No steps were taken, nor were any witnesses produced, summoned and examined. Hence 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 will be 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 legal notice issued by opposite parties seeking repayment of loan dues, carefully. There are no pleadings to the effect that there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainants have no case that they are entitled to get facility of instalment payment for repayment. They have not statedwhat is the rate of interest charged or that interest demanded is against the rate mentioned in loan agreementor illegal. Hence prayer for reducing rate of interest also has no factual or legal foundation. In short, main prayers by the complainants are only for extention of time to repay the loan and also for reduction in the rate of interest. There are no pleadings by complainants that they are 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 prayer for the damages and litigation costs also will have to be declined along with the earlier prayers mentioned above. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for opposite parties, there is no cause of action as such for the complaint.Complainants are 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

 

(cont….4)

• 4 -

 

parties which according to us, upon a fair estimate will be Rs.2000/-. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed with litigation cost of Rs.2000/- payable to opposite parties by complainants.

 

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