O R D E R SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for a direction to the opp.party to issue statement of accounts, compensation, costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant who is a member of 3rd opp.party has applied for a loan and he was sanctioned Rs. 65,000/- as loan. But the pass book ,the date of commencement of repayment, amount of instalments rate of interest penal interest etc were not given. The complainant is running a pan shop. Due to financial difficulties he could remit only one instalment of loan towards repayment. On 1410.2004 a notice was received from opp.party 3 intimating that a sum of Rs.1,36,038/- is due from the complainant. The complainant though demanded a detailed statement the same was not furnished . In February, 2000.there was a scheme by which defaulters were given an opportunity to remit the entire outstanding amount and interest and in that case 50% of the interest could be written off. On knowing about the scheme the complaint again approached opp.party 3 and demanded a detailed statement on 19.3.2005. On 22.3.05 he issued a letter under courier service. But the opp.party 3 did not give any statement, but sent a vague reply stating that a sum of Rs.1,75,453/- is due to the bank from him. Since the scheme period expired on 31.3.05 the complainant remitted the amount of Rs.1,49,077 which was the amount intimated, after deducting interest etc. under the OTS scheme. The complainant has been given only Rs. 65,000/- as loan amount but interest was calculated for Rs.70,000/-. The interest charged was also high. The conduct of the opp.party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. Opp.parties 1 and 2 are exparte. Opp.party 3 filed version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has applied to opp.party 3 for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for house construction and a sum of 70,000/- was sanctioned as loan with interest at 15.2% . There was also provision for payment penal interest of 2.5% in case of default. The complainant has executed mortgage deed as security. The period of loan was 10 years and the amount was to be repaid in 114 instalments. A sum of Rs.5,000/- deducted from the loan amount towards share for Rs.4,700/- , cheque commission of Rs.100/- and site inspection expenses of Rs.200/-. There is no practice of issuing pass book, but receipt will be issued to the amount paid. The averments that the complainant is running a panshop is not correct. The complainant has sufficient income to repay the amount but he has deliberately did not make repayment. The complainant never approached the opp.party requesting for statement of account. The opp.party has issued a reply notice, dated 31..3..2005 in which the details of arrears and other details were given . A deduction of Rs.26,376/- as per the scheme of One Time Settlement was also given. The complainant is not entitled to get 50% discount in interest and penal interest. The complainant was entitled to get only 25% discount in interest and penal interest and accordingly he was given 25% discount. The complainant was satisfy with discount and remitted Rs.1,49,077/- . No amount in excess has been remitted by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs. Points that would arise for consideration: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P4 are marked For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext.D1toD7 are marked. POINTS: . The contention of the complainant is that though the loan sanctioned to him was Rs.70,000/- he was given only Rs.65,000/- but the interest for the loan was calculated for Rs.70,000/- . According to the opp.party Rs.5,000/- was deducted from the loan amount towards share value and other expenses and the details of the deduction was given to the complainant. which is produced by the complainant himself as Ext.P4. It is further case of the opp.party is that the complainant never approached them for refund of the share value and the share value will be refunded to the complainant as and when application for the same would be received. So the contention that the loan amount received is Rs.65,000/- only is unsustainable. Another contention of the complainant is that though the complainant was eligible to get deduction of 50 % on interest and penal interest he was allowed only 25% deduction which is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. According to the opp.party 50% discount would be allowed to only those persons whose terms of loan is already over. According to the opp.party the complainant is entitled to get only 25% discount on interest and penal interest as he is a defaulter for more than 5 years and this aspect is evident from Ext.P2. The complainant has no case that the opp.parties did not act in accordance with Ext P2 . No material, worth believable is also produced by the complainant to establish that he is entitled to get 50% discount on interest and penal interest other than Ext.P2. As per the terms and conditions in Ext.P2 the opp.party has allowed 25% discount on the loan amount which comes to Rs.26,393/-. So first contention that he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.49,077/- being the excess amount collected by the opp.party is unfounded and the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opp.party towards excess amount collected . Another contention of the complainant is that despite several request made by him the opp.party did not give him the statement of accounts and the details regarding the loan such as the tenure, instalment the rate of interest, the rate of penal interest etc. The Ext. D1 the loan agreement executed by the complainant clearly shows all these details and it cannot be believe that the complainant has executed Ext. Ext. D1 without understanding these aspects. The contention of the complainant that the opp.parties do not send any reply to the communications is also not supported by any evidence. Ext. D3 is a letter dated 19.3.2005 which is send by the complainant to the opp.party for which the opp.party has issued Ext. D5 reply and the same has been received by the complainant is obvious from his remittance of the loan amount on 31.3.2005 . As argued by the learned counsel for the opp.party the absence of date of visit of complainant to the office of the opp.party 3 itself would show that he has not visited the 3rd opp.party’s office as alleged. It is pertinent to point out that the complainant has remitted only one instalment of the loan amount and it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that he became aware of loan only on receipt of a notice from the opp.party 3. The opp.party has produced Ext. D6 statement of account, the copy of which has also been given to the complainant which shows the details of the loan and arrears. As pointed out earlier Ext. D1 contains all details of the loan For all that has been discussed above we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party and the complainant is not entitled to get Rs.49,077/- as contended by him. Of course the complainant is entitled to get the share value as and when he applies for the same and the opp.parties will release the same with interest. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is dismissed. It is made clear that the complainant is entitled to get the share value and the accrued interest as and when he applies for the same. No costs. Dated this the 30th day of April, 2010 I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. Shahul Hameed List of documents for the complainant P1. – Receipt dt. 31.3.2005 P2. - Notice. P3. – Registered notice dt. 14.10.2004 P4. - Receipts List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Saraswathy Amma List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Loan agreement D2. – Mortgage deed D3. – Certificate issued by Village Officer D4. – Reg. Notice sent by complainant D5. – Reply notice D6. – Statement D7. - Voucher | 
