D.o.F:4/6/07 D.o.O:12/11/08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.NO.14/07 Dated this, the 12th day of November 2008 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER A.N.Kumaran, Edassery Thazha Veedu, Mandapam Po, Beemanady : Complainant Kasaragod. 1. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, Beemanady Branch, Beemanady. 2. General Manager, : Opposite parties Federal Bank Ltd, Regd.Office, Kozhikode. ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT ; The case of the complainant in brief is that: Complainant, his wife Chellamma and son Anil have availed 8 distinct loan in their name from Federal Bank Beemanody branch. The total amount of loans were Rs.3,35,000/-. The said amount fell due to the bank from them. Therefore, the bank asked them to pay the entire dues so as to get a benefit of Rs.50,000/- in by way of one time settlement. As per the oral agreement made on 12/1/05 the complainant, his wife and son paid the principal amount due and the interest thereon and there by closed all the loans as on 23/3/05. But instead of closing all 8 loans, OP.NO.1 adjusted the amount only to 6 loans availed by the complainant his wife and son and the documents relating to said 6 loans only were returned and demanded further payment of Rs.19820/- to close the dues. The said amount included the interest from 23/3/05, the date of closure of loan to date of notice dtd.14/10/06. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 2. Opposite parties defend the complaint on many grounds. According to opposite parties, the complaint is not maintainable since the relationship between complainant and opposite parties are one of creditor and debtor and they availed the loan as per contract entered in to, and for the breach of said contract remedy lies before the civil court. On merit it is the case of opposite parties that complainant, his wife and son agreed from the debt relief recovery camp held on 12/1/05 to close all 8 loans before 31/3/05 to get the interest benefit of Rs.50,000/-. But the borrowers did not close all the 8 loans and only closed 6 loans. When the borrowers approached opposite party No.2, he advised them to settle the dues amicably and get back the documents from Bank. But the borrowers were reluctant to settle the accounts and instead filed a complaint before Banking Ombudsman at Thiruvananthapuram on 18/7/06. The said complaint was disposed by Banking Ombudsman on 18/8/06 with a direction to settle the disputes amicably. Since the complainant and his wife failed to close the outstanding 2 loans, a registered notice on 14/10/06 was sent to them calling upon to pay the amount due to the bank availing concession of Rs.50,000/- as agreed, though opposite parties are not liable to extend the benefit of concession to the borrowers after 31/3/05. Since the 2 loans were kept pending the documents pertaining to the said loans were not returned back. But these 2 loan accounts were subsequently closed on account of interest relief received by the bank. So at present there are no dues to opposite party No.1 from Chellamma P.P. and from the complainant and opposite party No.1 is ready and willing to return the documents, if Chellamma approaches the bank. But she did not turn up to obtain the documents. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and therefore prays for a dismissal of complaint. 3. Complainant filed affidavit and faced cross examination as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 marked. On the side of opposite parties, OP.NO.1 the Branch Manager filed affidavit and he was cross examined by counsel for complainant and Exts.B1 to B7 marked . Both sides were heard and the documents perused carefully. 4. The specific case of the complainant is that in spite of oral settlement opposite party No.1 has not closed all the 8 loans availed by him, his wife and son but only closed 6 loans . Hence the documents pertaining the said 2 loans were not returned. Moreover, OP.NO.1 issued Ext.A1 notice demanding Rs.19829/- as on 14/10/06 after deducting the concession as per the one time settlement held in the interest relief camp held on 12/1/05. The said amount included interest from 23/3/05 to 14/10/06 ie, till the date of Ext.A1 to settle the remaining 2 loans. 5. The opposite parties contends that the complainant and his wife and son have closed only 6 loans and 2 loans remained unpaid, therefore the demand is made as per Ext.A1. It is the case of opposite parties that these 2 loan accounts were subsequently closed on account of interest relief received by the bank. So there is no outstanding dues to OP.No.1 from complainant and his wife Chellamma.P.P and hence they are ready to return back the documents to the complainant and his wife Chellamma (the mortgagors of the property) But instead of collecting the documents directly or through any authorized person, complainant filed this frivolous complaint. 5. The contention of counsel for opposite parties is that complainant is not a consumer and the dispute mentioned herein is not a consumer dispute and the relation between the complainant and opposite party is that of a debtor and creditor has no force in view of Sec.2(1)(0) of the Consumer Protection Act: The opposite parties are Bankers and dispute is with respect to banking which squarely falls within the scope of ‘service’ and any deficiency in service attracts the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The counsel for opposite parties further contend that complainant Kumaran has no locus standi to represent his wife Chellamma without any aurhtorisation. This argument is also not sustainable since the complainant is the husband of Chellamma and hence he can be consider as a beneficiary of Smt.Chellamma. He can represent his wife without any authorization. 6. It is the case of complainant that as per one time settlement arrived at the interest relief camp held on 12/01/05 he closed all 8 loans on 23/3/05 in order to get the interest relief of Rs.50,000/-. To prove the discharge of loans he produced Ext.A2 series receipts(8 Nos.). The total amount paid as per Ext.A2 series are Rs.431883/-. Ext.A2 series receipts shows that the payments are made to 8 distinct loans and not only to 6 loans. After the payment of the said amount what remained unpaid to close the loans were only Rs.7208/- even according to opposite parties. We don’t think that the borrowers who intends to close all their 8 loans by paying considerably a big amount like Rs.431883/- to avail the benefits of one time settlement to the tune of Rs.50,000/- will keep a balance of Rs.7208/- only in their account as balance that may disqualify them from enjoying the benefits of interest concession. That apart, even without collecting any amount as per Ext.A1 demand notice , opposite party No.2 closed the remaining 2 loans subsequently stating that interest reliefs are subsequently received by them . According to opposite parties, even after adjusting Rs.50,000/- there were an outstanding due of Rs.7208/-. So how these amount with interest is cleared as on 31/3/07 and what exactly was the amount adjusted towards interest reliefs and what prompted opposite parties to close the loan without receiving any additional amount from complainant etc nowhere stated except the vague admission that these loan accounts were closed on account of interest relief received by the bank. So the case of the complainant became more probable that he along with his wife and son closed all 8 loans on 23/3/05 as per the one time settlement entered by them on 12/1/05. 7. As per Exts.B6&B7, the entire dues to the opposite parties are seen cleared as on 31/3/07. But no communication intimating the closure of loan has seen issued either to complainant or to Chellamma especially when they approached OP.NO.2 and Banking Ombudsman with their grievance of non return of documents after closure of the loan. It also speaks volumes about the deficient nature of service of opposite parties. 8. Reliefs and Costs: The prayer of the complainant is for an order to return of documents pledged with compensation and cost of Rs.50,000/-. Of course, the complainant suffered due to the non return of documents and release of mortgage which would have been done immediately on closure of loans. Further they were compelled to approach various authorities for the redressal of their grievances . Definetely, they are entitled for compensation for their mental agony and sufferings. The concept and meaning of the word compensation which has been widened to such an extent by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case after case and in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 that it encompasses in its fold each and every element of suffering due to wrongful act or deficiency in service by the service provider a mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering, actual loss or expected loss or other sufferings suffered by them. We further extend this concept that any service provider or trader who forces a consumer to seek a remedy or redressal by approaching the District Forum or any other legal authority, which all the more adds insult to injury and fuel to the fire causes further harassment and mental agony to the consumer, as now a days these remedies are becoming costlier day by day and going beyond the reach of common man. This fact should always kept in mind by the service providers and traders who have got their own legal departments and machineries for fighting in the law courts by engaging standing counsels. In the light of above complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to return the documents deposited by Kumaran and Chellamma and to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. We make clear that the documents of Chellamma shall be released to her duly authorized agent on production of authorization in case of her inability if any to approach the bank. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1-14/10/06- Notice issued from Ops A2 & A2series- cash receipts A3-18/8/06-order issued by office ofBanking Ombudsman A4-copy of complaint submits before Banking Ombudsman A5-24/5/83- intimation issued by Rubber Board B1- Recovery camp proceedings B2-letter of sanctioning authority,R.O,Kozhikode. B3—do- B4-11/10/06 letter B5-20/10/08 –do- B6 –Copy of Statement of Account B7- do- PW1-A.N.Kumaran-Complainant DW1-Thomas .P.J-Manager of Op.NO.1 Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ Senior Superintendent
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
