Kerala

Idukki

CC/139/2021

Varkichen V C - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kerala State Co - Operative Bank ltd - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jul 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :  4.10.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   21^st  day of July, 2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                  PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.139/2021

Between

Complainant                                          :     Varkichan V.C.,

                                                                   Valiyaparambil House,

                                                                   Adimali P.O., Adimali.

          (By Adv:  K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                     : 1.  The Manager,

                                                                   Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

                                                                   Adimali Main Branch,

                                                                   (Formerly District Co-operaive Bank Ltd.),

                                                                   Adimali P.O., Adimali.

      2. State Co-operative Bank,

                                                                   Represented by Branch Manager,

                                                                   Adimali Main Branch,

                                                                   Adimali P.O., Adimali.

 (Both by Adv: C.K. Babu)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

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

 

          Complainant had availed an O.D. facility of Rs.11 lakhs from Adimali main branch of 1^st opposite party bank, represented by its manager.  2^nd opposite party is State Co-operative Bank, represented by the very same manager of Adimali branch.  Loan was taken for running his spices shop known as Greenvalley Spices, which is his means of self-employment and livelihood.  Loan was availed in 2014.  Subsequently, over the passage of time, complainant’s business flourished and O.D. limit was enhanced to Rs.15 lakhs in 2016.  Apart from hypothecation of stock, immovable property of complainant having an extent of 50 cents was also given as security for the loan.  Business was running smoothly until the last of 2019.  Thereafter owing to Covid pandemic situation, complainant’s business was shut down and he had sustained heavy losses.   Hence  he  was  unable to remit instalments.  During this period, Central                                                                                                               (cont…2)

• 2  -

Government along with RBI had given directions for rescheduling the loan and to adopt measures so as to reduce the difficulty of loanees during the pandemic.  However, no such facilities were extended by opposite parties to complainant.  Interest was not settled, nor was loan rescheduled and period extended.  Complainant submits that this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence he seeks a direction against opposite parties for rescheduling his loan or to grant him moratorium for 2 years.  He also seeks compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

 

          2.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 have appeared and filed written version jointly.  Their contentions are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          According to opposite parties, complaint is not maintainable.  As per RBI Covid Regulatory Guidance, loans which stood standard as on 31.3.2021 alone are eligible for moratorium.  Complainant’s loan has become NPA since 3.4.2020 onwards.  Opposite parties have taken abundant caution to avoid coercive steps. Hence personal requests  are made and notices are sent repeatedly, so as to induce the loanee to clear outstanding loan amount.  Complainant was also advised to avail OTS scheme which was in force until 30.11.2021.   However, he had not availed this facility.  There is no deficiency or defect on the part of opposite parties.  There is no cause of action.  Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

          3.  Case was thereafter posted for steps and then for evidence.  No oral evidence was tendered by complainant.  2 documents produced by him were marked as Exts.P1 and P2.  Opposite party also has not tendered any oral evidence.  Statement of account produced by opposite party was marked as Ext.R1.  Thereafter evidence was closed and both sides were heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint ?

3)  Final order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

          It is admitted that a loan was availed by way of over draft facility extended by opposite parties to complainant, ceiling limit of OD in 2016 was of Rs.15 lakhs.  Complainant also admits that he was unable to repay OD dues as agreed by him.  He would say that owing to Covid pandemic situation, his business has suffered a set back and that opposite parties have not extended  moratorium reliefs as directed by RBI and Central Government.  Ext.P2 is copy of guidelines submitted by complainant himself.  It is specifically mentioned therein that the credit facilities / investment exposure to the                                                                                                           (cont….3)

• 3  -

borrower must be classified as standard by the lending institution as on March 31, 2021 for availing resolution frame work for Covid 19 related stress.  In this case, opposite parties have pleaded that the loan account of complainant has become NPA as early as on 3.4.2020.  Exts.R1 and P1 are both copies of account statements pertaining to the loan account of complainant.  From both documents, it can be seen that as on 31.3.2020, loan has become NPA.  Thereafter notice and EC charges are debited to the account.  That being so, we find that complainant has not proved that his account was standard as on 31.3.2021.  That being so, he cannot be considered as entitled for Ext.P2 benefits.  Consequentially we find that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties in non-granting any of those benefits to complainant.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.3 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  Interim orders passed in I.A.60/2021 were not extended after 02/08/2022. This application is also dismissed.  Parties shall take back extra copies. 

                    Pronounced by this Commission on this the  21^st   day of July, 2023

                                                                                    Sd/-                                                                                            SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT                                                                                           Sd/-                                                                                                       SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER                                                                                                                         Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1     -  Statement of account.

Ext.P2     -Copy of guidelines submitted by complainant

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    -  Statement of account.                                               Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

                                                                                  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR