KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:224/2008 JUDGMENT DATED:16..10..2008. (Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF Idukki in CC.No:221/2006.) PRESENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The Secretary, Service Co-operative Bank, Kattappana.P.O, Kattappana, : APPELLANT Idukki. (By Adv: Sri.K. Krishna Kumar) V. Smt.Molly Thomas, Kunnapillil House, Thovarayar.P.O, : RESPONDENT 20th Acre, Idukki. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:1st July 2008 passed by the CDRF, Idukki in CC.221/06. The complainant therein approached the opposite party/Service Co-operative Bank, Kattappana for availing a loan of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite party bank sanctioned Rs.8000/- by way of loan, but the opposite party deducted a sum of Rs.4,418/- from the aforesaid loan amount of Rs.8000/- on the ground that a sum of Rs.4,418/- is due to the bank from the husband of the complainant under other loan transaction. Aggrieved by the aforesaid deduction of Rs.4,418/- the complaint was preferred. 2. The opposite party took up the contention that the deduction of Rs.4,418/- was effected with the consent of the complainant and so the opposite party requested for dismissal of the said complaint. 3. The Forum below considered all the relevant aspects of the case and came to the conclusion that there occurred deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/bank in deducting Rs.4,418/- from the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.8000/-. Admittedly there is no documentary evidence available on the side of the opposite party/bank to substantiate its case that the said deduction was made with the consent of the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant as PW1 categorically deposed that she had never given such a consent for making deduction of Rs.4,418/-. Admittedly the opposite party/bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.8000/- to the complainant. Then it was the bounden duty of the opposite party/bank to disburse the said loan amount of Rs.8000/- to the complainant. The opposite party bank had no authority to deduct a sum of Rs.4,418/- which was due to the bank under another loan transaction entered into between the complainant’s husband and the bank. Thus, in fact there is nothing on record to show that the complainant consented for making such a deduction. It is further to be noted that the loan sanctioned to the husband of the complainant was secured with sufficient security. It was the duty of the opposite party/bank to proceed against the complainant’s husband who actually availed the said loan by furnishing sufficient security. On the other hand, the opposite party/bank chose a very shortcut method by deducting the said amount from the loan amount of Rs.8000/- which was sanctioned infavour of the complainant. Thus, the Forum below is fully justified in directing the opposite party/bank to pay the said sum of Rs.4,418/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Admittedly the loan amount would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Forum below has only ordered Rs.1000/- towards cost. Thus, in all respects the impugned order passed by the Forum below is just proper. There is no ground to interfere with the said order passed by the Forum below. Thus, the present appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Hence we do so. In the result appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL. | 
