DOF.13.10.2009 DOO.2.9.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 2nd day of September 2010 C.C.No.278/2009 Puthalath Balakrishnank PuthalathHouse, Pattel Road, P.O.Chirakkal, Kannur 11. Complainant Manager, Chovva Co.op.Rural Bank, Thottad Branch, P.O.Thottada (Rep. by Adv.O.K.Sasindran) Opposite parties O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.18/- paid by the complaint as notice charge and a sum of Rs.1, 000/- as compensation.. The case of the complaint in nutshell is as follows: Complainant availed a loan of Rs.15000/- from the opposite party under loan account number 1747 on 14.6.08 by executing necessary documents. On 20.1.09 Branch Manger, Thottada sent him a notice calling upon to pay the due amount with interest and notice charge within 7 days of receiving notice. Pursuant to the notice complainant paid Rs.295/- towards loan amount, Rs.687/- interest and Rs.18/- notice charge on 2.2.09. The period of loan expires only on 14.6.2011. Complainant sent notice to Branch Manger stating that they have sent notice to complainant before due date hence realization of Rs.18/- as notice charge is wrong. But opposite party neither sent reply not refunded the notice charge. The collection of Rs.18/- as notice charge amounts to deficiency in service and thereby opposite party is liable to refund the same and to pay compensation. Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The case of the opposite party in nutshell is thus: The complaint has taken a loan of Rs.15, 000/- from the opposite party on 14.6.2009. The loan terms stipulated to repay the loan debt in 36 monthly installments with 13% interest. The details of the terms are set out in the loan documents. Complainant committed default. In spite of several reminders complainant did not comply the loan terms. So bank decided to call back the loan and issued notice to complainant and his sureties. On receiving notice complaint came to the bank and remitted the defaulted interest alone. Bank had also collected Rs.18/- as notice charge as per rules. Collecting notice charge is only a normal procedure and nothing illegal in it. There is no deficiency of services. The complaint is frivolous and baseless intended only to harass the opposite party bank as a vengeance for demanding repayment of the entire loan dues. The complainant is a habitual litigant and his practice is taking loan from several banks and making problems by not making repayment promptly. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral evidence of the complainant as PW1and Exts.A1 to A15 and B1 to B3 on the side of opposite party. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly complainant has availed loan from the opposite party bank on 14.6.2008. Opposite party has issued demand notice to complainant and his sureties. Pursuant to the notice complainant made payment and at the time of payment opposite party bank has levied a sum of Rs.18/- also as the notice charge, for which the complainant claiming an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.18/- collected from complainant and to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation. The case of the complaint is that since the opposite party has issued the demand notice prior to the due date the opposite party is not legally entitled to claim notice charge from the complainant. But opposite party on the other hand contended that it is charged in accordance with the rule and is only normal procedure. There is nothing illegal or else deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank. Complainant adduced evidence by filing proof affidavit in tune with the pleadings. Complainant was cross examined by the opposite party. Complainant deposed in cross examination that he has complaint only with respect to the payment of notice charge Rs.18/-. He has deposed that “notice charge am{XT Xncn-¨p-In-«-W-sa-¶mWv ]cm-Xn.-aäp ]cm-Xn-IÄ H.-]n-s¡-Xn-tc-bnÃ` 18 cq] hkqÂsN-bvXXv \nb-a-hn-cp-²-amWv F¶-XmWv ]cm-Xn. Imem-h-[n¡v ap³t] t\m«o-k-b-¨-XmWv ]cmXn”. Complainant filed 15 documents. None of those documents explains the rules that govern the loan taken by him. Ext.B1 loan agreement reveals thus: AXm-Xp-am-k-T-A-S-t¡--Xmb ]eni hogvN hcp-¯n-bm hogvN-bn DÄs¸« 3 amkT Ddp-¸n-I¡v 2i-X-am-\-{]-Im-cT ]eni AS-¨p-sIm-f-fp-¶-Xm-Wv. CXn-\p-]p-dta tFsX¦n-epT cv KUp-hn\p AS-t¡--Xmb kT-Jy AS-¡p-hm³ hogvN-h-cp-¯n-bm DSs\ Cu FS-]mSv hI IW¡v XoÀ¡m-hp-¶-XpT A§s\ XoÀ¡p-T-t]mÄ IW¡v t\m¡n ImWp¶ BsI XpI¡v IW-¡vXoÀ¯ Xob-Xn-ap-X hkq Bhp-¶-Xp-hsc Ddp-¸n-I¡v 15-i-X-am-\-{]-Im-c-T-]-eni tNÀ¯p-m-hp¶ kT-J-y-bpT Cu FS-]mSv kT-_-Ô-ambn Dm-hp¶aäp sNe-hp-I-fpT R§-fm-epT R§-fpsS kz-¯p-¡-fm-epT Hml-cn-ho-X-a-Ãm-sX. . . . . .\n-b-a-{]-Im-cT hkq sNbvXp sImf-f-s¸-Sm-hp-¶-XmWv“ .The terms makes it clear that the complainant or his sureties jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of loan with interest and also other expense that may arose in connection with the loan transaction. Other expenses no doubt include notice charge since it is an expense that arose out of loan transaction itself. Complainant has made it clear in his cross examination that his case is only with respect to Rs.18/- notice charge. That means other amount as a result of the default committed by complainant in paying the loan installment has not been questioned. It is not questioned on the reason that it is an amount which the complainant legally bound to remit on the one hand and the same is accepted by the complainant on the other hand. Complainant has deposed in cross examination that “ tem¬ Xh-W-IÄ IrX-y-ambn _m¦n Xncn-¨-S-¨n-cp-¶n-Ã. 16.9.08 \p tijT 2.2.09-\mWv Xncn-¨-S-¡p-¶Xp “. If that be so the complainant happened to remit the amount at this juncture only because of the notice issued by the opposite party. Thus there is no doubt it is this notice as part of loan transaction played the role compelling the complainant to make the payment. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that there is nothing wrong in collecting the notice charge from the complainant. Since it includes in other charges in connection with the loan transaction itself. Thus we are of opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get an order as prayed in the complaint. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. Loan pass book issued by OP A2. Loan pass book issued by Kuttikkakam SC Bank A3.Receipt issued by OP A4.Copy of the letter dt.12.2.09 issued by OP A5 to 7. Letter dt.4.6.09, 18.6.09 and 10.8.09 issued by Asst. Registrar, Kannur. A8.Gold loan receipt issued from Chirakkal SC Bank A9.Notice issued by Chirakkal SC Bank A10. copy of the order of state commission. A11. Copyof the order from Joint Registrar A12. Copy of the letter from Deputy Registrar dt. 22.9.09. A13.Letter dt.28.11.09 issued by JR A14.Tax receipt A15.Attested copy of ration card Exhibits for the opposite parties: B1.Loan agreement B2.Copy of loan ledger B3. Loan application submitted by complainant. Witness examined for the complainant PW1.complainant Witness examined for opposite parties: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
