THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.<br /> Present:<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President<br /> Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member<br /> CC No. 51/2007<br /> Wednesday, the 30th day of July, 2008<br /> Petitioner : 1) Shibu Cyriac,<br /> Vattamattathil,<br /> Kallara P.O, Kottayam.<br /> 2) Rosamma Sabu,<br /> Vattamattathil,<br /> Kallara P.O, Kottayam.<br /> (By Adv. Ruby K. Jose)<br /> <br /> Vs.<br /> Opposite party : Kottayam Dist. Co.Op. Bank No. 4309,<br /> Branch Kaduthuruthy,<br /> reptd. By its Manager.<br /> (By Adv. Adv. Jose Joseph K)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> Case of the petitioner is as follows:<br /> The first petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- for his business purpose from the opposite party by furnishing property of the second petitioner as security. According to the petitioner the loan was closed on 18..1..2006 by paying entire loan amount and for that receipt was issued by the opposite party. Even after closing of the loan the opposite party filed a suit before the Joint Registrat as ARC 5/2000for recovery of loan amount. The petitioner states that act of the opposite party is illegal, improper and to harass the petitioner. So the opposite party filed this petition for getting compensation of Rs. 5000/- for mental agony caused to him he also claims Rs. 3000/-as cost of the proceedings. <br /> Opposite party entered appearance, filed version contenting that the petition is<br /> not maintainable and Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. They admitted the loan transaction and closing of the loan as alleged by the petitioner. <br /> -2-<br /> According to the opposite party the complaint is a defaulter on 30..4..2003 and apart from the personal request, registered notice was sent to the complainant on 23..7..2003, 11..12..2003, 3..8..2005 calling upon to repay the amounts, failing which legal proceedings were initiated for recovery of the amount. Even after the receipt of the registered notice dtd: 3..8..2005 the petitioner had not settled the loan and the authorised officer of the bank filed Arbitration Reference case against the petitioner and guarantor as ARC No. 5/2006. The Arbitrator issued summons to the petitioner in due course. The opposite party contented that the date shown in the plaint as 27..2..2006 is not correct <br /> and case was filed on 30..12..2005 and summons was issued to the petitioner on 1..1..2007 calling upon to appear on 16..1..2007. During the pendency of ARC the petitioner closed the loan on 18..1..2006 and ARC was dismissed as not pressed. So, there is no deficiency of service on their part. So, petition is to be dismissed with their costs.<br /> Points for determinations are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs?<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite party.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner produced a letter issued by the opposite party showing closing of the loan on 18..1..2006 and said document is marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A3 is the plaint filed by the opposite party before the Joint Registrar of the Co-Op. Socieities. The said document is marked as Ext. A3. In Ext. A3 filing date of the plaint to the Joint Registrat <br /> -3-<br /> is shown as 27..2..2006. The petitioner has also produced the summons issued from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies. The said document produced is marked as Ext. A2. From Ext. A2 it can be seen that the summons was issued on 1..1..2007. The opposite party has also produced a certificate issued by the Joint Registrar, Kottayam Dtd: 10..4..2007 the said document is marked as Ext. B3. In Ext. B3 it is stated that the case is filed on 3..1..2006. So, from the records produced by the petitioner and opposite party we are of the opinion that the contention of the opposite party that the arbitration case is filed before the closing of the loan is much probable. So, no deficiency in service can be attributed against the opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. <br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2008.