By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant’s case in brief is that he availed a loan of Rs.95,000/- under the PMRY scheme from the Chavakkad branch of Nedungadi Bank. The complainant used to pay the repayment instalments promptly. But the respondents did not account the subsidy amount of Rs.7500/- and also levied interest at the rate of 19% and 21%. When complained to the authorities the Nedungadi bank called the complainant and agreed to close the loan account if he pay Rs.40,000/-. So the complainant remitted Rs.40,000/- on 30.7.2002. The bank authorities agreed to remit the subsidy amount and wave the penal interest. Accordingly no amount was asked from him after 30.7.2002. Meanwhile the Nedungadi bank was amalgamated with the 1st respondent bank. As per the direction from the 1st respondent the respondents-2 to 4 issued a demand notice for Rs.20,986/- and to initiate RR actions to collect the amount if not paid. Since the complainant has paid the loan amount in one time settlement he is not liable to pay the amount as per the demand notice. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The first respondent filed a counter to the effect that the complainant availed the loan for Rs.95,000/- from Nedungadi bank, Chavakkad branch on 28.1.98 under PMRY scheme for conducting the business of automobile workshop. But the complainant was not regular in remitting the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The 1st respondent demanded the loan amount several times and on 30.7.2002 the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.40,000/- and submitted the application for one time settlement. On 1.8.2002 the bank allowed him to remit the balance amount in one time after deducting the subsidy amount of Rs.7500/- and penal interest. But he did not turn up. The 1st respondent never obtained exorbitant rate of interest from the complainant. The complainant did not turn up to remit the balance amount as per the terms and conditions of one time settlement. After the amalgamation the 1st respondent issued notice on 15.4.2004, 28.10.04 and 25.11.04 calling upon the complainant to settle the loan account. The complainant did not turn up and remit the balance amount. The bank was constrained to initiate RR proceedings for the realization of the amount. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The respondents-2 to 4 have stated in their counter that they received a requisition letter from the 1st respondent to realize amount Rs.20,986/- from the complainant as arrears due from him to the bank. Accordingly the 3rd respondent issued the demand notice on 15.11.07. Hence dismiss the complaint.
4. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to get the relief sought for?
(2) Is there any deficiency in service committed by the respondents
in this case?
(3) If so, reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence adduced are Exts. P1 to P3, Exts. R1 to R10 and oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1.
6. Points: The complaint is filed against Exts. P1 and P2 notices with a request to set aside these notices. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.95,000/- under the PMRY scheme from the Nedungadi bank. The complainant has remitted the repayment instalments. However he has defaulted some of the instalments. The complainant remitted Rs.40,000/- on 30.7.2002 leaving a balance of Rs.17,959/-. The Nedungadi Bank has agreed to adjust the subsidy amount of Rs.7500/- and wave the penal interest to close the loan account under one time settlement. Nothing was heard from after remitting Rs.40,000/-. Mean while the Nedungadi Bank was amalgamated with the 1st respondent Punjab National Bank and the complainant received the Exts. P1 and P2 notices from the Revenue authorities to initiate Revenue Recovery action against the complainant for realizing Rs.20,986/- as dues to the Punjab National Bank. The complainant claims that the notice is issued without proper accounting and also without accounting his subsidy amount due to him. The 1st respondent has denied this. They have stated that the complainant remitted Rs.40,000/- on 30.7.2002 and applied for one time settlement. The bank allowed him to remit the balance amount in one time settlement after deducting the subsidy amount of Rs.7500/- and penal interest. But he did not turn up. So the bank has issued requisition letter to the Revenue authorities to realize the amount under R.R. action. The complainant remitted Rs.40,000/- on 30.7.2002 and there was a balance of Rs.17,959/- due from him as Ext. P3 reveals. Ext. P3 also reveals that the complainant has remitted Rs.1,14,417/- into his loan account as on 30.7.02 including interest. He has entitled to get a subsidy of Rs.7500/-. The complainant is examined as PW1. PW1 has denied that as per the decision in one time settlement he has to pay Rs.5459/-.
7. The manager of 1st respondent bank is examined as RW1 and Exts. R1 to R10 marked. Ext. R4 is the proposal for one time settlement submitted by the Nedungadi Bank. The said bank has recommended to allow the one time settlement for Rs.5459/- after adjusting the subsidy amount of Rs.7500/- and reduction in penal interest Rs.5000/-. But it is not known whether the proposal has been admitted and the decision communicated to the complainant. Whereas it is stated in Ext. R6 dt. 25.11.2004 that there existed an amount of Rs.27,341/- due from the complainant. The loan amount is written as Rs.90,000/-. But the loan amount is Rs.95,000/-. It may also be noted that in Ext. R9 the requisition letter for recovery of amount given to the District Collector, Thrissur, the principal amount is written as Rs.19,986/- and interest Rs.1000/-. At the time of remitting Rs.40,000/- the dues in principal amount was Rs.17,959/- and the subsidy amount of Rs.7500/- had to be adjusted in the loan account. It is stated in Ext. R4 that the loan account shows a balance of Rs.10,459/- as on 30.7.2002 if the subsidy is adjusted. Rs.40,000/- was remitted on 30.7.02 leaving a balance of Rs.17,959/-. The subsidy amount was not adjusted at that time. RW1 has deposed that “
Ext. R7
11.6.2005 Ext. R7 is the balance and security confirmation letter dt. 12.12.2003. The balance amount due from the complainant is written in Ext. R7 as Rs.22,505/- and there is no mention of subsidy amount in this letter. Ext. R7 is issued on 12.12.2003 whereas RW1 has deposed that the subsidy amount was accounted on 11.6.2005. It is quite contradictory.
8. The disputed loan was availed from Nedungadi Bank and the repayment of loan amount upto 30.7.2002 was made in the Nedungadi bank. At the time of remitting Rs.40,000/- on 30.7.02 the outstanding balance was Rs.17,959/- whereas the subsidy amount of Rs.7500/- entitled to the complainant had to be adjusted at that time. The delay in the processing of loan and action taken was due to the amalgamation of the Nedungadi Bank with the Punjab National Bank. The complainant was no way responsible to it and it seems that the subsidy amount has not been adjusted and there is discrepancy in calculating the requisition amount. These are shows the grave deficiency in service committed by the 1st respondent. Since the amount shown in the Ext. P1 and P2 notice is without any basis it is liable to be set aside.
9. In the result the complaint is allowed partly and the Exts. P1 and P2 notices are set aside. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.5459/- (Rupees five thousand four hundred and fifty nine only) with 6% interest from 1.8.2002 within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 18th day of August 2012.
