BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 21^st day of August 2014

Filed on : 03/10/2012

PRESENT:

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.603/2012

Between

Anil Thomas, : Complainant

Chakravelil house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,

Palakuzha P.O., Court road, Muvattupuzha)

Muvattupuzha-686 686.

And

1. Manager, : Opposite parties

Union bank of India, (By Adv. Rajesh Thomas,

Muvattupupzha branch, 1^st floor, Carmel Centre, Banerji

Muvattupuzha-686 661. Road, Kochi-682 018.

2. Secretary,

Merchants welfare society, (absent)

Opp. to New college bookstall,

Post Office Junction,

Muvattupuzha-686 661.

3. Deputy Thahsildar (R.R), (party-in-person)

Taluk Office,

Muvattupuzha-686 669.

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant has been running a shop at Muvattupuzha under the name and style “Gaso Tech stove centre” for earning his livelihood by

means of self employment. The 2^nd opposite party had launched a loan scheme for its members in collaboration with the 1^st opposite party in the year 2006. The complainant who is a member of the 2^nd opposite party availed a loan for Rs. 50,000/-. As per the terms and conditions the loan has to be repaid in equal instalments of Rs. 180/- in 300 days. Accordingly the complainant repaid Rs. 54,000/- and closed the loan within the time frame stipulated for repayment. While so, the complainant received a demand notice dated 21-06-2012 from the 3^rd opposite party asking him to pay Rs. 6,677/- along with interest at the rate of 10.75%. The 1^st opposite party is shown as the requisition authority. On receipt of the notice, the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party informed him that they have remitted Rs. 54,000/- in time in the 1^st opposite party bank. The 1^st opposite party refused to give any information. The act on the part of the 1^st opposite party to initiate RR proceedings against the complainant for a closed loan amounts to deficiency in service. The RR proceedings was initiated after five years from the date of closure of the loan and that too without giving any notice. Hence the demand is barred by limitation. The complainant suffered severe mental agony and hardships due to the serving of the demand notice. He is entitled for withdrawal of the demand notice. He is also entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The complainant is a loan account holder maintained with the 1^st opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable in this Forum as the proceedings initiated under Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968 can not be

complainant, member of the 2^nd opposite party had availed a small trader’s loan of Rs. 50,000/- on

23-02-2006. There was a mutual understanding between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party to remit an amount of Rs. 177/- daily for 300 days through the 2^nd opposite party, on the explicit understanding that the

amount so calculated will be deposited in the 2^nd opposite party’s account maintained with the 1^st opposite party and transferred to the complainant’s account at weekly rests and that is an irrevocable understanding till the loan with the 1^st opposite party is fully adjusted. The 2^nd opposite party delayed in remitting the amounts and that there was balance outstanding in the loan account of the complainant. The last remittance made into the account of the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party was on 04-12-2007. As on that date a sum of Rs. 1,703/- was outstanding in the complainant’s account. The 1^st opposite party is entitled to recover the amount as per the notice issued under RR proceedings. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The contentions of the 3^rd opposite party are as follows:

The impugned notice has been issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant in furtherance of the Revenue Recovery Certificate issued by the learned District, Collector to recover a sum of Rs. 6,677/- from the complainant herein. The 3^rd opposite party has not taken any action apart from the said notice.

4. The 2^nd opposite party was served with a notice of this complaint, but they opted to remain absent for reasons of their own. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exbt. A1 was marked on his side. The witness for the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exbts. B1 to B8 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 3^rd opposite party. Heard the counsel for the contesting parties.

5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:

i. Whether the complaint is maintainable in this forum?

ii. Whether the impugned notice is barred by limitation?

iii. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the

impugned notice?

iv. Whether the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay a compensation of

Rs. 10,000/- and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

6. Point No. i. According to the complainant Exbt. A1 notice dated 05-07-2012 is barred by limitation since the same is issued after 5 years from the date of closure of the loan account. The learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party strongly relied on the decision rendered by the full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Kerala Fisheries Corporation Vs. P.S. John 1996 KHC 158 to defend the said averment of the complainant and argued that the provisions of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before a collector under Revenue Recovery Act. The above decision of the Hon’ble High Court squarely applies to the facts of the case at hand. We are only to uphold the upper wisdom of the higher judiciary and so this point is found against the complainant.

7. Point No. ii. The 1^st opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum as the proceedings initiated under Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968 can not be challenged before the Forum. It is to be noted that the complainant has not challenged the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act whereas this complaint is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in wrongly initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant’s closed loan account. Even otherwise as per section 3 of

the Consumer Protection Act the remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act give the Consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws. In that view of the matter we have no hesitation to hold that this complaint is very well maintainable in this Forum.

8. Point No. iii. It is not in dispute that the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the 1^st opposite party on 23-02-2006 and the loan was to be repaid in 300 daily instalments of Rs. 177/- each evidenced by Exbts. B1 to B5. Exbt. B6 is the understanding between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party for the repayment of the loan which reads as follows:

“WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE I/WE HEREBY AGREE TO REMIT RS. 177/- IN DAILY INSTALMENTS FOR 300 DAYS AND AGREE TO REMIT THE SAME THROUGH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOCIETY SO AUTHORISED AGAINST PROPER RECEIPT ON THE

EXPLICIT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE AMOUNT SO COLLECTED WILL BE DAILY DEPOSITED IN THE SOCIETY’S A/C MAINTAINED

WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUVATTUPUZHA AND TRANSFERRED TO MY/OUR AFORESAID LOAN A/C AT WEEKLY RESTS ie EVERY

SATURDAY. THIS IS IRREVOCABLE UNDERTAKING TILL THE LOAN WITH THE BANK IS FULLY ADJUSTED”.

9. Exbt. B7 is the loan account statement of the complainant which goes to show that an amount of Rs. 540/- was remitted by the 2^nd opposite party in the account on 04-12-2007 and a sum of Rs. 2,243/- was outstanding in the loan account as on 14-12-2007 evident from Exbt. B8 letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party. So the contention of the complainant that he has remitted the full loan amount

through the 2^nd opposite party is found not sustainable. During evidence the witness for the 1^st opposite party who was examined as DW1 deposed that the pass book of the 2^nd opposite party would show that the complainant had remitted all the instalments in time with the 2^nd opposite party.

10. In view of the above, we can not hold that the complainant has closed the loan account though he paid the amount to the 2^nd opposite party as per Exbt. B6 agreement entered into between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party, the complainant is legally liable to pay the outstanding amount in the loan account to the 1^st opposite party. It is evident that the complainant has remitted the amount with the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party failed to remit the amount with the 1^st opposite party. Deficiency in service is writ large on the part of the 2^nd opposite party in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant is

entitled to get refund of the amounts that may be remitted by the complainant with the 1^st opposite party as regards the loan account.

11. Point No. iv. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and so refrain from awarding compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

12. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

i. The complainant is to pay the outstanding amount in the loan

account to the 1^st opposite party.

ii. the 2^nd opposite party shall reimburse the amount to the complainant that may be paid by him to close the loan account in question within 30 days from the date of demand on the part of the complainant failing the amount would carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

The order shall be complied with in tune with the above direction.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of August 2014.

Sd/-

A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix

Complainant’s exhibits :

Ext. A1 : copy of demand notice

Opposite party’s exhibits :

Ext. B1 : copies of documents executed

B2 : Copy of sanction advice

B3 : Copy of receipt dt. 23-02-2006

B4 : Copy of loan sanction intimation

B5 : Copy of agreement

B6 : Copy of letter

B7 : Copy of statement dt. 07/10/2007

B8 : Copy of bearer cheque

Depositions:

DW1 : Varughese