cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of October 2012
Filed on : 30/01/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 64/2012
Between
John Jose, : Complainant
Pallikunnel house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Avoly P.O., Muvattupupzha. Road, Muvattupuzha)
And
1. Manager, : Opposite parties
State Bank of India, (1st O.P. absent)
Muvattupuzha-686 661.
2. Manager,
State Bank of India, (2nd O.PBy Adv. Jaice Jacob,
Avoly Branch, Avoly P.O., High Court of Kerala,
Muvattupuzha-686 667. Ernakulam)
3. Deputy Thahsildar (RR), (3rd o.p.By authorized representative)
Taluk Office, Madavoor P.O.,
Muvattupuzha-686 669.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant availed a loan from the 2nd opposite party on 11-11-2005. He closed the loan on 07-05-2011 by remitting the due amount Rs. 41,539/-. While so, after the closing of the loan the complainant received a RR notice dated 26-09-2011 from the 3rd opposite party asking him to pay Rs. 41,579/- towards loan dues. It is stated in the notice that the demand was raised on the basis of the request made by the 1st opposite party. Though the complainant brought the matter before the 1st and 2nd opposite parties they have not taken any steps to withdraw their request. The above said act of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has been put to severe hardships due to the RR proceedings initiated against him. He could not transfer his property and he cannot avail any loan by mortgaging the property due to the RR proceedings. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- as compensation from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties for the hardships and difficulties occurred him due to their wrongful act. The 3rd opposite party may be directed to restrain from initiating any coercive steps against the complainant. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties may be directed to withdraw the request made by them for initiating R.R. proceedings against the complainant. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:
The complainant availed a loan from the 2nd opposite party. The complainant defaulted the repayment of the loan amount and the opposite party was constrained to initiate revenue recovery proceedings to recover an amount of Rs. 41,539/-. The complainant remitted the dues to the opposite party as on 07-05-2011 which amounts to Rs. 62,622/-. But he did not remit the revenue recovery charges payable to the revenue department being 5% of the amount recovered which comes to Rs. 3,132/-. The bank requested the complainant to remit the said amount to absolve him from any further proceedings. But he was not ready and willing to pay the amount. The 1st opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
3. The contentions of the 3rd opposite party is as under. The 3rd opposite party initiated revenue recovery proceedings at the instance of the revenue recovery certificate issued by the District Collector, Ernakulam. Later the 2nd opposite party submitted a receipt showing remittance of the due amount. Since the 2nd opposite party has not remitted the collection charge the 3rd opposite party could not close the revenue recovery proceedings.
4. In spite of receipt of the notice from this Forum the 1st opposite party opted not to contest the matter for their own reasons. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. The 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 3rd opposite party. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 2nd opposite party.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of
Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite parties 1 and 2?
ii. Whether the 3rd opposite party is entitled to proceed with the
RR proceedings against the complainant?
6. Point Nos. i & ii. The complainant availed himself of a loan from the 2nd opposite party and failed to repay the amount in some due dates. Accordingly the bank initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant to the tune of Rs. 41,539/-. Thereafter on 07-05-2011 the complainant remitted a total amount of Rs. 62,622/- with the 2nd opposite party evident from Ext. A1 series receipts in settlement of his loan account. Ext. A2 the notice dated 26-09-2011 issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant goes to show ;that the complainant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 41,539/- with 12.5% which goes to show that the 2nd opposite party failed to intimate the remittance of the amount as per Ext. A1 series to the 3rd opposite party in time. The 2nd opposite party contended that since the complainant failed to remit the 5% of the outstanding amount that is to be paid to the Government towards arrears. We are not to agree with the said contention, especially when the 2nd opposite party failed to intimate the remittance of the amount as per Exts. A1 series to the 3rd opposite party. Had that been this complaint would not have arisen. But they failed and this complaint arose for which the complainant is not squarely liable. If at all any amount is due to the Government on account of this loan the 2nd opposite party shall pay the same which shall necessarily compensate the complainant for the deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. No further indulgence is called for necessarily.
7. To set things right we pass the following order.
i. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties shall take immediate steps to
withdraw the RR proceedings initiated against the
complainant.
ii. The 2nd opposite party shall issue a certificate to the
complainant stating that the complainant is not liable to pay
any amount in the disputed loan account further?
iii. The 3rd opposite party is at liberty to collect their commission
from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of October 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : copies of series of receipts
A2 : Copy of RR form
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
Deposition:
DW1 : K.A. Baby
