Kerala

Idukki

CC/41/2020

Amal Swayam - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Adv: lissy m m

08 Apr 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :20.2.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.41/2020

Between

Complainant : Solly George,

Secretary,

Amala Swayam Sahaya Vanith Sangham,

Konnackamali P.O.,

Thopramkudy.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

And

Opposite Party : The Branch Manager,

Kerala State Co-operative Bank,

(Idukki District Co-operative Bank)

Thopramkudy Branch.

(By Adv: C.K. Babu)

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short). Complainant is a Secretary of an organisation, namely, Amala Swayam Sahaya Vanitha Sangham, Thopramkudi. Opposite party was formerly Idukki District Co-operative Bank and presently it is Kerala State Co-operative Bank with its registered office at Vazhathoppe. Complainant is maintaining Account No.120476026820088 with the opposite party. On 12.6.2015, complainant had availed a loan of Rs.6 lakhs from opposite party, which was divided amongst it’s 10 members as loans to them. Loan due to 1^st opposite party from Sangham was to be repaid in 60 monthly instalments. It was repaid promptly until the floods in 2018 and thereafter amount outstanding was Rs.10,39,575/-. The loan was availed for agricultural purposes. There were

 

 

repeated crop failures since 2018, 2019 due to floods and in succeeding years owing to Covid pandemic. Complainant is prepared to settle the loan by availing One Time Settlement or by rescheduling loan repayment. Despite repeated demands for the same, there is no response from opposite party. Despite the fact that Government declared moratorium for all loans till 21.3.2021, opposite party had issued notice on 22.1.2020 demanding repayment of loan. Seeking recovery of loan dues, while moratorium in is force and denial of opportunity for One Time Settlement amounts to gross deficiency in service. Hence complainant prays for a direction against opposite party to grant One Time Settlement facility to complainant or in the alternative for rescheduling of the loan. Complainant also seeks compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony undergone by it due to deficiency in service and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

2. Opposite party had appeared and filed written version. Its case is briefly discussed here under: According to opposite party, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts. Loan was granted for a tenure of 3 years. This time had expired on 11.6.2018. Thereafter it become NPA. Outstanding amount as on 18.3.2020 is Rs.1,44,256/- (One Lakh Fortyfour Thousand Two Hundred and Fiftysix only). This loan was not an agricultural loan. It was SHG loan. Despite repeated requests and demands, loan was not repaid by complainant. There is no moratorium for this loan. However, opposite party is prepared to renew the loan on or before 31.3.2020, subject to usual terms and conditions. Rescheduling is not possible as opposite party bank does not have any such facility. There is no deficiency in service. Intention of complainant is to circumvent the legal proceedings for recovery and to wriggle out from the liability. Complaint is experimental in nature. Same is to be dismissed with cost.

 

3. Thereafter case was posted for steps and then for evidence. Despite availing repeated opportunities, complainant has not appeared or given evidence. Hence complainant’s evidence was closed. Counsel for opposite party also submitted that it has no evidence. Evidence was closed. As there was no representation from the side of complainant, we can only hear the learned counsel for opposite party. We have also gone through the records of this case. Now points which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether complainant is entitled for an Order directing opposite party to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement or in the alternative for rescheduling the loan?

2) Whether complainant is entitled for any compensation ?

3) Reliefs and costs ?

 

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

 

Admittedly, complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party and its payment has become overdue. Opposite party has stated that the loan account has become NPA. Nothing was produced from the side of complainant to show that the category of loan availed by it will fall within the class of loans for which moratorium was declared by the Government. There is no evidence before us to prove that the complainant is entitled for One Time Settlement facility and if there is such entitlement, secondly, that the complainant had fulfilled necessary preconditions, if any, for availing such facility. Alternate prayer for rescheduling loan is also not supported by any evidence of there being a right in favour of complainant to make such a claim. There is no evidence to show that there is any deficiency in service. Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for or litigation costs. On the other hand, it had protracted recovery proceedings of the bank and kept the loan amount outstanding which had caused financial loss to the Bank which runs on public money. Therefore we are of the view that complainant should bear at least Rs.2000/- as costs payable for the litigation expenses undergone by opposite party. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5. Point No.3 :

 

In view of our findings in Point Nos.1 and 2, we dismiss this complaint with cost of Rs.2000/- for litigation expenses payable by complainant to opposite party.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 8^th day of April, 2022

 

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR., PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT