Kerala

StateCommission

A/12/860

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LATHA NAIR - Opp.Party(s)

S.WILLIAMS

20 Nov 2014

ORDER

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Dated this the 20^th November, 2014

 

PRESENT:

 

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

 

SHRI.V.V.JOSE                        : MEMBER

 

              APPEAL.860/2012

 

State Bank of India (ADB),

Sobha TSM Complex,                                      -        Appellant/ Opposite Party

Opp. Town Railway Station,

Palakkad R/by its Branch Manager.

 

(By Adv: Sri.A.K. Philip)

 

                                                         Vs

Smt.Latha Nair,

W/o.Dr.N.G.Nair,                                           -        Respondent/ Complainant     

Residing at Revathi,

Venkitesapuram, Puthur, Palakkad.

 

(By Adv:Sri.R.Manikandan)

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

 

          This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.No.7/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad  challenging the order of the Forum dated 10/08/2012 directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh and a cost  Rs.1,000/-.

2.        The case of the complainant as stated in the complaint before the Forum in brief  is this:

          The complainant has availed 4 loans of Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.1,72,000/-, Rs.72,000/-, Rs.2,85,000/- from the opposite party bank for dairy farm.  60 cents of his land was mortgaged with the opposite party bank for the loan.  As the complainant defaulted repayment of the installments the loans were declared as Non Performing Assets with effect from   30/09/2007.  Meanwhile Government introduced Agricultural Debt Waiver & Relief Scheme of 2008 in which complainant was also included.  As per this scheme 25% of the of the amount outstanding as on 29/08/2008 was waived and the balance 75% was to be deposited by the complainant on or before 31/12/2009.  According to the complainant the amount due to the bank is Rs.1,05,130/- after deducting the waiver amount.  Complainant requested to bank on 31/12/2009 to furnish the details of the amount due from the complainant.  But only on 24/02/2011 opposite party asked the complainant to close the loan by paying Rs.5,69,307/-. As the complainant was in need of the records of properties mortgaged he paid that amount on 10.06.2010.  The opposite party has collected an excess amount of Rs.4,64,177/- which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Therefore the complainant filed the complaint claiming refund of the excess amount of Rs.4,64,177/- and a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

 

3.       The opposite party is State Bank of India, Agricultural Development Branch, Palakkad represented by the Branch Manager.  He in his version contented thus:

 It is admitted that complainant availed the 4 loans for dairy farm and the same have been declared as non performing aspects as the complainant defaulted the installments.  Section 4(b) of the Debt Waiver Scheme of the  Central Government provided that eligible amount as far as the complainant is concerned is the installments over due and applicable interest on such installments as on December 31^st 2007 and unpaid till February 28, 2008.  Complainant coming under the category of other farmers is entitled to get 25% of the eligible amount waived provided he pays 75% of the eligible amount.  Opposite party has charged interest as per RBI directions and as provided in the agreement.  There is no delay in settling the account of the opposite party.  That being so complaint has to be dismissed.

 

  4.     Complainant filed the chief affidavit and produce Ext.A1 to A8.  On the side of the opposite party DW1 was examined Ext.B1  to B12 were marked before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that  there was delay in settling the accounts of the complainant and directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and a cost of Rs.1,000/-.  The opposite party has  now come up in appeal  challenging the said order of the Forum.

 

5.       Heard both the counsels. 

 

6.       The following points arises for consideration.

1.  Whether there  was any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

7.       It is not disputed that complainant availed 4 loans from the opposite party for dairy farming and that he is entitled to 25% debt relief under the head “other farmer” as provided under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme of 2008.  The case of the complainant is that there was inordinate delay in settling his claim and that the opposite party has demanded an amount of Rs.5,69,307/- from the complainant for closing the loan.  According to the complainant the actual amount due is only Rs.1,05,113/- and the opposite party has collected an excess amount of Rs.4,64,177/-.  The complainant contented that after 31/12/2009, the date on which the loan was declared as non performing asset, opposite party can claim only simple interest.  But in Ext.B3 agreement no where it is stated that opposite parties are entitled only simple interest after declaring the loan as non performing asset.  Therefore Forum is perfectly justified in accepting the calculation statement filed by the bank and holding that the allegation of the complainant that opposite party collected an excess amount of Rs.4,64,177/- is not proved.

 

8.       The next question for consideration is whether there was any delay in settling the account of the complainant.  DW1 the Bank Manager has deposed that on December 30, 2009 complainant asked for the details of the amount due, but the reply was given only on 18/02/2011.  DW1 has not explained the said delay properly.  That being so the Forum is perfectly justified in holding that there is inordinate delay in settling the account of the complainant for which complaint is entitled to compensation.  The Finding of the Forum  on this point is  confirmed.   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

9.       The Forum has ordered a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and a cost of Rs.1,000/-. We find no ground to interfere the said finding of the Forum.

 

In the result we find no merit in this appeal for the same is here by dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 

 

JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V.JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.