Kerala

Idukki

CC/154/2020

Suni Reji - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Adv: K B Selvam

07 Mar 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 9.11.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 7^th Day of March, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.154/2020

Between

Complainant : Suni Reji,

Kunnel House

Manippara P.O.

Attikklam,

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. IDCB Kanjikkuzhi Branch

Now turned as State Co-operative

Bank,

Kanjikkuzhi, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: C.K. Babu)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

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

1. Complainant is first surety for a cattle loan obtained by one Sujatha Sasi from the bank represented by opposite parties. Loan was taken on 23.8.2018. 1^st opposite party is the Deputy General Manager of Kerala State Co-operative Bank (cont…2)

- 2 -

(former Idukki District Co-operative Bank) and 2^nd opposite party is IDCB Kanjikkuzhi Branch, which is now the State Co-operative Bank, Kanjikkuzhi branch. Aforesaid loanee has used the entire loan amount for promotion of agriculture. However, the loanee was unable to repay the loan, due to repeated crop failure during last 2 years owing to floods which occurred in 2018 and subsequently due to spread of Covid 19 pandemic. During this time, Government had declared moratorium for repayment of all loans. Despite this, opposite parties have sent notices to the principle debtor and complainant who is the surety demanding repayment of loan amount. After receipt of notice, both complainant and the principle debtor had approached opposite parties and made a request for repayment of loan amount in stages. However, the request was turned down by opposite parties. Instead they were warned that CIBIL score of complainant and the principal debtor will be lowered, if the loan is not repaid. On 5.10.2020, complainant had received a summons from ARC. Complainant understands that summons is in relation to recovery proceedings initiated by opposite parties. Case before ARC is now pending for filing of written statement. Complainant submits that principal debtor is facing a financial crunch. Hence complainant had requested for more time for repayment on behalf of principal debtor. Though opposite parties were sympathetic, they have not granted more time as assured by them. Instead, on 5.11.2020, opposite parties had approached the complainant and threatened him that if the entire loan amount is not repaid, steps to recover dues by proceeding against property of the complainant should be initiated without further notice. This has caused severe mental agony to complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant prays for a direction against opposite parties to give more time to principal debtor to repay the loan amount and also to restrain the recovery proceedings initiated against complainant. He also seeks a direction for reducing rate of interest of the loan and an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- for his sufferings.

3. Both opposite parties have entered appearance. 2^nd opposite party has filed a written version refuting the claim of complainant. His contentions are briefly discussed here under :

According to 2^nd opposite party, complaint is not maintainable, either upon facts or in law. Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.1.9 lakhs on 18.3.2016, this loan was renewed on 30.3.2018 and converted as a special ordinary loan. The loan account has become NPA since 30.6.2018. As per RBI, Covid Regulatory (cont…3)

• 3 -

Guidlines, loan which stood standard as on 29.2.2020 alone are eligible for moratorium. Issuance of notices and personal requests for repayment of loan amount are usual procedures and not illegal. Bank takes utmost care to avoid coercive steps as far as possible. It is incorrect to say that opposite parties were not willing to accept repayment in stages. Despite repeated request and demand, complainant had not cared to repay loan amount. Hence the bank has initiated steps to proceed against complainant. However, an OTS scheme is provided until 31.3.2021 for defaulters to clear their dues. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. There is no cause of action for this case. Complaint is experimental in nature. Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for. Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

1^st opposite party has adopted the contentions taken by 2^nd opposite party.

4. After filing of written version, case was posted for evidence after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides for taking steps. Despite availing repeated opportunities, complainant has not tendered any evidence. Hence complainant’s evidence was closed. Opposite parties have not tendered any evidence as there was no evidence from the side of complainant. At the time of final hearing after closure of evidence, learned counsel for complainant have reported no instructions. We have heard learned counsel appearing for opposite party. Able counsel submitted that the case has no factual foundation or legal sanction. Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed. His intention was only to buy time by filing this case and he had to some extent succeeded in his attempt also. That the complaint may be dismissed with costs. Now the points arises for consideration are :

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

2) Reliefs and costs ?

5. Point No.1 :

Complainant has only claimed that moratorium is applicable to the loan availed by its principal debtor and therefore proceedings for recovery are premature. Opposite parties have taken a contention that as the loan was converted upon application by the principal debtor upon renewal into a different scheme and further as there was default in repayment, it will not come under the moratorium (cont…4)

• 4 -

declared by the Government. Nothing was produced to show that moratorium declared by Government is applicable for the loan availed by the principal debtor also. That apart, principal debtor is the main person affected by recovery proceedings, she has not been made a party to this case. In so far as permission for repayment of loan dues in installment is concerned, same is purely discretionary and cannot be claimed as of right by complainant. That apart, he is only a surety and hence does not have a right to seek recovery of dues from the principal debtor in installments or in stages as contended by him. Complainant has also sought for reduction of interest. Here again, claim does not have any legal foundation. Complainant has not proved that he is entitled for directions prayed for against opposite parties allowing the principal debtor and himself to repay the loan in stages or to restrain them from taking legal proceedings for the recovery of loan amount. Neither is the complainant entitled to get interest rate lowered as of right and therefore, we find that complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

6. Point No.2 :

In view of our findings arrived at, while discussing Point No.1, we further find that complaint is only to be dismissed. Considering the manner in which complainant had protracted the trial by seeking repeated opportunities for evidence, we are of the view that he should be saddled with costs payable to opposite parties, which in our fair estimate will come to Rs.2000/-.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/- in total payable to bank represented by opposite parties, by complainant.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 7^th day of March, 2022 Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

Appendix : Nil.

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT