PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of March 2012
Filed on : 01/08/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 407/11
Between
Geemon Chettiyattu, : Complainant
S/o. Chacko, (By Adv. Roy Varghese,
Chettiyathu house, Olimolath house, Pancode P.O.,
Mattakuzhi Kara, Varikkoli P.O., Ernakulam-682 310)
Thiruvaniyoor,
Ernakulam-682 305.
And
M/s. State Bank of Travancore, : Opposite party
Rep. by its Branch Manager, (By Adv. Sally Thomas Chacko
Punnachalil Building, Tharakan Veedu, Elenjeril
Thiruvankulam P.O., Lane, K.P. Vallon Road,
Ernakulam-682 305. Kadavanthra P.O.,
Kochi-682 020.)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant availed an agriculture loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite party under the scheme Long Term Crop Loan for the period from 19-08-2008 to 09-07-2011. The balance amount due in the loan account as on 05-07-2011 was Rs. 52,127/-. The complainant also availed annother agricultural Investment loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the opposite party and the outstanding due as on 05-07-2011 was Rs. 2,27,409/-. Apart from that the complainant stood as a guarantor to his mothers loan for Rs. 1,50,000/- and the balance amount due in the account was Rs. 44,640/- as on 05-07-2011. However the opposite party demanded exorbitant amounts than that of the amounts due as on 05-07-2011. In the meantime the opposite party initiated RR proceedings against the opposite party for Rs. 3,61,000/- with 12.5% interest p.a. and also demanded through a RR notice for Rs. 40,000/- in his mother’s account. The opposite party is claiming commercial rate of interest from the complainant. Since the opposite party has initiated RR proceedings the complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to avoid RR proceedings. In fact the total amounts due in the 3 accounts are Rs. 2,27,409/-, Rs. 52,127/- and Rs. 44,640/- respectively totaling Rs. 3,24,176/- the complainant has remitted Rs. 25,824/- in excess. Thus the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 25,824/- from the opposite party and the complainant is not liable to pay any amount in the above accounts. This complaint hence.
2. Version of the opposite party
The complainant has availed one KCC Long Term Crop Loan and agricultural investment loan from the opposite party and he was a guarantor to the agricultural loan availed by his mother. The demand as per the RR notice with interest at the rate of 12.5% p.a. is legal. Borrowers are entitled for the facility for having the rate of interest of 7% for a period of one year only in the Kissan Credit Card Scheme. But in case of default or if the borrowers fail to renew the said facility, the opposite party is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12.5%. Later the complainant has entered into a compromise with the regional office of the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 3,69,000/- in the light of the compromise, the complainant remitted Rs. 3.50,000/- . The balance amount of Rs. 19,000/- is yet to be paid by the complainant. The opposite party is not liable to refund Rs. 25,824/- to the complainant as claimed by him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A7 and B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite party respectively. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.
25,824/-?
ii. Whether the complainant is liable to pay any amount in the
loan accounts?
5. Point No. i&ii. Admittedly the complainant availed two agricultural loans from the opposite party and stood as a guarantor for his mother’s loan. According to the opposite party the complainant entered into a compromise with the regional office of the opposite party to settle the loan accounts for a total sum of Rs. 3,69,000/- and he has remitted Rs. 3,50,000/- towards part payment. However the opposite party has not produced the compromise entered into between the complainant and the opposite party for whatever reasons of their own. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not stated the fact of settlement between the complainant and the opposite party in the complaint. Evidently the dispute between the parties are with regard to the settlement of accounts between the parties in respect of the 3 loans mentioned above which has been settled without demur and no contentions for or against raised. We close the proceedings in the full light of the above with an observation that the complainant is not liable to pay any more amounts in the loan accounts.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of March 2012.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of statement of account
from 19/08/2008 to 09/07/2001
A2 : Copy of statement of account
from 19/08/2008 to 09/07/2011
A3 : Copy of statement of account
from 05/10/2009 to 09/07/2001
A4 : Copy of lawyer notice
dt. 24/05/2011
A5 : Demand notice dt. 03/06/2011
A6 : Demand notice dt. 03/06/2011
A7 : Copy of letter dt. 14/07/2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of letter dt. 23/06/2006
B2 : Copy of letter dt. 09/08/2008
B3 : Copy of letter dt. 03/09/2011
B4 : Copy of statement of account
from 19/08/2008 to 22/03/2011
B5 : Copy of Statement of account
from 19/08/2008 to 03/09/2011
B6 : Copy of letter dt. 20-07-2011
B7 : Copy of letter dt. 20-07-2011
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
