By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The complainant running a petty shop near by his house. He approached the opposite party for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to improve his shop. The complainant approached the opposite party office and the officials from the office offered effective service also. The complainant was asked to sign certain papers and also certain cheque. The opposite party allowed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 03/10/2012. While the complainant approached the opposite party for the loan amount the opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- only. The opposite party was told that the balance amount will be transferred to the account of complainant. But later it was found the amount not transferred and the complainant again approached the opposite party for the details of non-transferring of amount. The opposite party said to the complainant that there is a loan pending in the name of wife of the complainant about 15,000/- rupees and the interest of the said amount will make it as Rs.24,000/-. It was informed that said amount of Rs.24,000/- will be credited towards the loan account of the wife of the complainant and the balance only be given to the complainant. But it was found that balance amount of Rs.26,000/- was also not issued to the complainant. The complainant approached various authorities and filed complaints and later it was come to know the opposite party has manipulated documents to show that the opposite party has issued 1,00,000/- to the complainant. The submission of the complaint is that he has not received 1,00,000/- rupees from the opposite party as the loan amount, but received only cheque leaf for Rs.50,000/-. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Collector on 29/08/2013 and then assured that they are prepared to rectify the mistake happened there side. The complainant was called to the opposite party bank and demanded not to make further issues and the complainant is only liable to repay the loan amount which he had received. But there was no further action from the side of opposite party and so the complainant again approached the district collector in the year 2017. There after the complainant received a lawyer notice dated 25/07/2018 demanding the complainant to remit an amount of Rs.2,06,357/- towards the loan amount. Then the complainant again approached the opposite party and told that the opposite party had agreed to rectify the mistake while the complainant approached the district collector. But the response from the opposite party was that he is not responsible for the undertaking given by the former official of the bank. The opposite party insisted to repay the loan amount along with interest. The act of the opposite party amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant approached the district collector with complaint on 01/09/2018 and as per that complaint, the lead district manager of the lead bank office had advised the complainant to visit the opposite party bank with documents and accordingly the complainant approached the opposite party bank. While he approached the opposite party bank, it was told that they are prepared to allow him the balance amount of Rs.26,000/-. But instead of complying the assurance the opposite party approached Munsif Court and filed suit as O.S 276/2018. The complainant also stated that though he remitted Rs.59,100/- towards the loan amount, the opposite party had not issued pass book of the account. The complainant was not able to improve his shop without the entire loan amount. Later he closed down the shop also. Hence the complainant prays for the declaration that the complainant received only Rs.50,000/-from the opposite party and also to account the remitted amount of Rs.59,100/-towards loan. The complainant prays compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and also cost of Rs.25,000/-.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version.
4. The complainant submitted signed loan application form and agreement before the opposite party. The documents were submitted by the complainant voluntarily before the opposite party after perusing the content. The opposite party is a government undertaking, scheduled bank and doing business observing all norms. The opposite party submitted they are providing service without any complaint. The complainant is liable to pay Rs.2,14,337/- to the opposite party and for that the opposite party filed O.S.276/2018 before the Munciff Court Manjeri on 15/09/2018. The attempt of the complainant is to evade from the repayment of loan amount.
5. The opposite party denied the contention of the complainant that while the complainant approached the opposite party bank , the bank issued cheque leaf for only 50,000/-rupees, that the opposite party assured 50,000/- rupees will be transferred to the account of the complainant , that the complainant was compelled to sign certain papers, the complainant approached the opposite party since the amount of Rs.50,000/- was not transferred to his account, it was told there is Rs.15,000/- as agricultural loan in the name of wife of the complainant, altogether 25,000/- rupees she has to pay to the loan, the opposite party assured the balance amount of Rs.26,000/- and the same was also not issued to the complainant, all are false and baseless. The opposite party submitted that the complainant issued signed application form and agreement which is part of the loan transaction. The complainant, after realizing the averments in the agreement and the documents submitted the same to the opposite party voluntarily. The opposite party had sanctioned Rs.1,00,000/- as loan to the complainant on 03/10/2012 and payment slip was also given to the complainant. But as per the request of the complainant to close the loan amount of his wife a total amount of Rs.51,323/- rupees was deducted from the loan amount and the balance amount of Rs.48,677/- was received by the complainant on 03/10/2012 itself .
6. The opposite party denied the averment that the opposite party manipulated documents for the receipt of 1,00,000/- rupees by the complainant from the bank, that he has not received Rs.1,00,000/-, he received only Rs.50,000/- through cheque leaf. The opposite party submitted that complainant had filed complaint before the district collector and other authorities but it was dismissed since it was found false. The opposite party also denied the contention of the complainant that he filed complaint before Malappuram District Collector on 29/08/2013, the opposite party thereon assured to rectify the mistake , the complainant was called to the bank , he was asked that not to make any further trouble, assured to correct the mistake immediately and his liability is only up to the received amount, thereafter the complainant did not proceed, 2017 the complainant again approached the district collector are false and so denied . The opposite party submitted that the complainant was never called to the bank at any point of time. It is submitted that the opposite party had issued notice to the complainant demanding the payment of loan amount. But It is denied that on receipt of notice the complaint approached the opposite party and said that he had not received Rs.1,00,000/- but received only 50,000/- rupees and he had remitted 59,100/- rupees and asked whether the opposite party had not assured to rectify the mistake, then the manager of the opposite party said that he is not able to do anything if at all the former manager had undertaken anything and then insisted the complainant to remit the amount of 1,00,000/- rupees with interest and then only the complainant realized the fact and found that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party also submitted that complainant had not issued even a reply notice sent to the opposite party.
7. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had submitted a Memorandum before the district collector and accordingly on 01/09/2018 the complainant had instructed to visit the bank to examine the loan documents. But the opposite party submitted that while the complainant approached the opposite party bank to peruse the documents, the opposite party had agreed to pay the balance amount after deducting Rs.26,000/- towards the loan account of the wife of the complainant but later it was not provided and further filed a suit before Muncif Court is not correct. The lead district manager inspected the documents and found that there is no merit in the allegation of the complaint and the complaint was closed accordingly. The opposite party also denied that they realized amount from the loan account of the complainant without the permission of the complainant. The opposite party also denied the allegation that the complainant had remitted Rs.59,100/- towards the loan account and no pass book was issued to him. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had issued pass book at the time of availing loan itself and it might have lost from the complainant. Even in the absence of pass book loan account statement is available with the opposite party at any time. The opposite party also denied the contention that the complainant was not able to improve his shop due to non-availing of the entire loan amount. The opposite party contended that the allegation of the complainant is for evading the payment of loan arrear Rs.2,14,337/- and also to escape from the legal proceedings initiated before the Munsiff Court Manjeri as O.S276/2018 and so the prayer is to dismiss the complaint with cost to the opposite party.
8. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ex. A1 is copy of complaint filed by complainant before the district collector dated 29/08/2013. Ext. A2 is photo copy of letter issued by Canara Bank, lead bank office, Malappuram to the complainant dated 01/09/2018. Ext. A3 is lawyer notice dated 25/07/2018 Issued by Advocate. Biju. S to the complainant. The documents on the side of opposite parties marked as Ext. B1 to B14. Ext. B1 is payment slip issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 03/10/2012. Ext. B2 is statement of account from 13/08/2011 to 03/10/2012 issued by opposite party. Ext. B3 is statement of account from 13/08/2011 to 30/10/2012. Ext. B4 is certified copy of plaint in original suit No.OS.276/2018 Munsiff Court Manjeri dated 15/09/2018. Ext B5 is copy of agreement for open cash credit /retail credit card/swarozgar credit card. Ext. B6 is copy of agreement dated 03/10/2012. Ext.B7 is copy of promissory note executed by complainant dated 03/10/2012. Ext.B8 is guaranty covering letter executed by Mr. Moideenkutty Musliayar dated 03/10/2012. Ext. B9 is copy of take delivery letter to DPN executed by the complainant dated 03/10/2012. Ext. B10 is acknowledgment of debt and security of borrower/co obligant dated 21/09/2015. Ext. B11 series are postal receipts Ext. B12 is statement of account for the period of 03/10/2012 to 08/08/2018. Ext. B13 is copy of information application submitted by Smt. Pushpalatha to the information Officer Collectorate, Malappuram dated 21/08/2012. Ext. B14 is copy of reply issued from the information officer collectorate, Malappuram to Smt. Puspalatha dated 01/09/2021.
9. Heard complainant and opposite party. Perused the affidavit and documents. The complainant and opposite party filed argument notes also.
10. The following points arise for consideration
1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
2) Relief and cost
11. The case of the complainant is that he availed loan of Rs.100,000/- from the opposite party on 03/10/2012 to improve his petty shop. He was received only 50,000/- rupees from the opposite party. The opposite party obtained certain signed papers and cheque leaves from the complainant. Now the opposite party has filed a suit before Munsif Court Manjeri as O.S No.276/2018 for realizing an amount of rupees more than Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant alleges the act of opposite party that is non issuance of entire loan amount to the complainant as unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant approached various authorities including the district collector to redress his grievance. The complainant produced Exts. A1 to A3 to substantiate his complaint. Ext. A1 is photo copy of an application before the district collector submitted by the complainant dated 29/08/2013 .Ext. A2 is a copy of letter issued by the lead bank office, Malappuram to the complainant to visit and verify the documents executed by the complainant with the opposite party bank. Ext. A3 is copy of lawyer notice demanding the complainant to remit an amount of Rs.2,06,357/- as on 24/07/2018.
12. The opposite party admitted the averment that complainant had availed loan of Rs.1,00,000 from the opposite party for the renovation of his shop. But it is submitted that the opposite party closed two loans which were availed by the wife of the complainant for a total amount of Rs.51,023/-. Out of the amount Rs,26,023/- was towards the loan account No.KCC 40181130117796 and Rs.25,000/- was to the loan account No.MERAIN 18115190000105. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.200/- was collected towards stamp per and Rs.100/- towards common loan inspection charges. The opposite party deducted the total amount and paid balance amount of Rs.48,677/- to the complainant. The opposite party also submitted the complainant executed an acknowledgment of debt and security on 21/09/2015 in favor of opposite party for renewing the above said loan. The opposite party issued registered lawyer notice demanding the repayment of loan amount with interest for an amount of Rs.2,06,357/- on 27/07/2018, since the complainant defaulted the payment of loan. The opposite party also contented that they filed O.S.276/2018 before the Munsiff Court Manjeri on 15/09/2018. The opposite party produced Ext. B1 to B14.
13. There is no dispute regarding the loan application and sanctioning of the same in favor of the complainant. The grievance is that the entire loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not given to the complainant. He was given only Rs.50,000/- instead of 1,00,000/- rupees. The complainant submitted that due to non-issuance of the entire loan amount he had filed complaint before the district collector and he produced Ext. A1 to establish the same . But the opposite party submitted that there was no such a complaint before the opposite party and no complaint was preferred before the district collector as per Ext. A1. The opposite party produced Ext. B13 and B14 to establish the same. Ext. B14 revels that there was no such a complaint from the side of complainant before the district collector.
14. The case if the opposite party is that though the complainant was allowed 1,00,000/- rupees as loan, as per instruction of the complainant two loan accounts of the wife of the complainant was closed. The opposite party produced bank account statements to prove the transaction of bank account. The complainant has not disputed regarding the existence of two loan accounts in the name of his wife. The complainant has stated that he was expecting an amount of 24000 after closing one loan account of Rs.26000/- pending in the name of his wife but he has not stated that he never authorized to clear the loan amount of his wife. So, it can be seen that the complainant had not received the entire loan amount but the balance amount was credited to the loan account of his wife and then it will not be proper to content that he was not received entire loan amount and to proceed further.
15. It is also pertinent to note that the present complaint before this commission is seen filed on 01/02/2019. At the same time the opposite party seen filed O.S.276/2018 before the Munsiff Court Manjeri on 15/09/2018. Considering this aspect the proceedings before this commission can be treated only as counter to the proceedings before the Munsiff Court Manjeri . The complainant is not barred from submitting the entire facts before the Munsiff Court, since the suit is pending.
In view of the above fact and circumstances we do not find deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and so the question of relief and cost does not arise. The complainant is at liberty to submit his case before the Munsiff Court and the present consumer complaint is dismissed with the above observation.
Dated this 20th day of June, 2022.
Mohandasan . K, President
PreethiSivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1: Copy of complaint filed by complainant before the district collector dated
29/08/2013.
Ext.A2: Photo copy of letter issued by Cannara Bank, lead bank office Malappuram to
the complainant dated 01/09/2018
Ext A3: Lawyer notice dated 25/07/2018. Issued by Adv.Biju. S to the complainant
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B14
Ext.B1: payment slip issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated
03/10/2012.
Ext.B2: Statement of account from 13/08/2011 to 03/10/2012 issued by opposite party.
Ext.B3: Statement of account from 13/08/2011 to 30/10/2012.
Ext.B4: Certified copy of plaint in original suit No.OS.276/2018 Munsiff Court
Manjeri dated 15/09/2018.
Ext.B5: Copy of agreement for open cash credit /retail credit card/swarozgar credit
card.
Ext.B6: copy of agreement dated 03/10/2012.
Ext.B7: pronote executed by complainant dated 03/10/2012.
Ext.B8: Guaranty covering letter executed by Mr. Moideenkutty Musliayar dated
03/10/2012.
Ext.B9: Copy of take delivery letter to DPN executed by the complainant dated
03/10/2012.
Ext.B10: Acknowledgment of debt and security of borrower/coobligant dated
21/09/2015.
Ext.B11: (series) Postal receipts.
Ext.B12: Statement of account for the period of 03/10/2012 to 08/08/2018.
Ext.B13: Copy of information application submitted by Smt. Puspalatha to the
information Officer Collectorte Malappuram dated 21/08/2012.
Ext.B14: Copy of reply issued from the information officer collectorate Malapuram to
Smt. Puspalatha dated 01/09/2021.
Mohandasan . K, President
PreethiSivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
VPH
