IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.267/2022 (Filed on 07/12/2022)
Complainant : Jayasree P.M W/o Late Stalin,
Kulakkattukunnel House,
Vellavoor P.O,
Manimala, Kottayam - 686 665.
(By Adv: Venu Gopakumar)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) Kottayam District Co-operative Bank, Pathanadu Branch,
(Now Kerala Bank)
Pathanadu P.O, Nedumkunnam,
Changanacherry, Kottayam – 686 610.
Represented by the Branch Manager
(2) Kottayam District Co-operative Bank, Kottayam,
(Now Kerala Bank)
Regional Office,
Represented by Anitha.R. Nair,
A& E Section,
Kottayam.. (Both by Adv: George.V. Thomas)
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs from the first opposite party in the month of September 2019 on the condition to repay in 120 instalments with monthly instalment of Rs.7,000/-. Complainant is employed in Agricultural Department but she could not repay the loan due to Covid 19 Pandemic. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant received a notice without considering relaxation of repayments under Disaster Management Scheme and the first opposite party claimed that the loan was overdue from 16-04-2009. It is further alleged in the complaint that the first opposite party compelled to repay Rs. 5,000/- on 28-04-2021. The 1st opposite party has filed a petition before the 2nd opposite party by alleging false facts and without even sending a notice to the complainant, the 2nd opposite party has passed the award showing that the complainant is a defaulter from 16/04/2018. The complainant had repaid amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the loan account. Due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties complainant has suffered much mental agony and hardship. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to produce the statement of account of the loan account and to direct the opposite parties to provide relaxation under Covid 19 scheme and to reschedule the loan and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
Upon notice from this Commission opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed a joint version contending as follows:
The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.3 lakhs for business purpose by mortgaging immovable property. The first opposite party is the Manager of the Pathanad branch of Kerala State Cooperative Bank Limited and the second opposite party is the Senior Manager of A & E section of the said bank. The second opposite party is only an employee of the bank and has not passed any award against the complainant and she is not competent or authorised to pass any award for and on behalf of the bank. The complainant defaulted the payment from the very beginning and not repaid the agreed instalments even after repeated demands from the opposite parties. Since the loan became overdue the opposite parties initiated recovery proceedings and filed arbitration case vide ARC Number 456/2020 before the Arbitrator appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act. The statement of account stated in the plaint filed before the arbitrator contains only the interest calculated from 16/04/2019 from the date of borrowel. The year 2009 showed in the notice is only a typographical error and the amount demanded therein is only from 16-04-2019. The arbitrator issued notice intimating the posting of the case to the complainant by registered post and the complainant did not appear before the arbitrator even after receipt of the notice. The arbitrator set her ex-parte due to her absence and the award was passed on 24-02-2021 under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act. After passing of the award complainant paid Rs.50,000/- in her loan account on 28-04-2021. The complainant has filed a revision petition before the Co-operative Tribunal as per the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act and is now pending for admission. It is contented by the opposite parties that the complainant who raised the subject matter on Revision Petition before the Co-operative Tribunal as per for statute not entitled to raise the same dispute before the Commission. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination, no documentary evidence from the side of the complainant. Suresh Kumar. G, who is the Manager of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits B1 and B2.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points :
(1) Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practise on the part of the opposite party?
(2) If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point Nos.1 and 2 together.
POINTS 1 & 2 :-
The specific case of the complainant is that she had availed loan of Rs. 3 lakhs from the first opposite party in the month of September 2019 on the condition to repay in 120 monthly instalment of Rs.7,000/-. It is contended that she received a notice without considering relaxation of repayment under Disaster Management Scheme and the opposite party claimed that the loan was overdue from 16-04-2009 and initiated legal proceedings against her to recover the amount.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite party stating that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.3 lakhs for business purpose by mortgaging immovable property and the complainant is not entitled for relaxation for any payment under Covid -19 scheme. The second opposite party is a Senior Manager of the first opposite party bank and did not pass any award as alleged.
According to the opposite party the complainant has defaulted the payment from the very beginning and an arbitration case was filed as ARC 456/2020 by the first opposite party before the arbitrator as per the Provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. It is proved by Exhibit B1 which is the award passed by the arbitrator in ARC 456/2020 that though the notice was served to the complainant on 4/01/2021 but she was absent during the proceedings of the case and she was set ex-parte by the arbitrator. It is further proved by Exhibit B1 that the arbitrator had passed an award permitting the opposite parties to realise an amount of Rs.3,79,071/- from the complainant together with an interest of 14% per annum.
On going through the Exhibit B2 which is the statement of account of the loan transaction we can see that the complainant repaid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 28-04-2021 that is after the date of the B1 award. It is further proved by Exhibit B2 which is the statement of account of the loan transaction that the loan was disbursed on 16-04-2019 and the interest is calculated from the said date only. It is pertinent to note that the arbitrator appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act is a competent judicial authority to decide the monetary disputes among the members of the co-operative banks. As per the Co-operative Society’s Act the opposite parties have right to file a suit before the arbitrator so appointed to realise the amount from the defaulters.
On going through the award passed by the arbitrator we can see that the complainant has availed the loan at the rate of 12% interest. The arbitrator has calculated the interest as Rs.73,271/- from the date of loan till the date of B1 award. Hence, we are of the opinion that the contention of the complainant that the opposite party has claimed the interest from 16-04-2009 will not sustain. Moreover it is proved by Exhibit B1 that the complainant did not pay any amount except Rs.50,000/- towards the loan account. Though the complainant claimed that she has not considered for the relaxation for payment during the pandemic. She did not adduce any evidence to prove which are the relaxations provided by the competent authorities in repaying the loan amount during the Covid-19 period.
On a close evaluation of above discussed evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove her case with cogent evidence and the complaint is to be dismissed .
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21st day of December, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
Nil
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
B1 - Copy of Award in ARC 456/2020 dated 24/02/2021
passed by the Arbitrator
B2 - Copy of the statement of account of the loan for the
Period 16/04/2019 to 16/10/2023 By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
