KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO.2/2012

JUDGMENT DATED: 19.07.2012

PRESENT

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

HDFC Bank,

RAC, 2^nd floor, SIMAX TOWER,             : APPELLANT

Vandipatta, Kannur Road, Calicut.

(By Adv:Sri.T.L Sreeram)

          Vs.

Mustafa,

R.K.House,

Kulangara, Kudlu.P.O,                              : RESPONDENT

Kasaragod Taluk.

(By Adv:Sri.Selvi.M)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellant was the opposite party in CC.139/10 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod.  The sole respondent was the complainant.  He alleged that he had availed loan of Rs.2.lakhs in September 2004 and another loan of Rs.50,000/- in January 2005 from the Lord Krishna Bank, Kasaragod branch.  Later the said bank was merged with Centurian Bank and subsequently that bank merged with the opposite party bank.  The complainant was repaying the loan instalments as  agreed.  He repaid a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the first loan.   He paid Rs.41,300/- towards the 2^nd loan.  While so he received 2 legal notices dated:19.11.09 from the opposite party in  which it was stated that the total outstanding amount as on 1.11.09 was Rs.2438/- towards the first loan and Rs.12,848/- towards the second loan.  The complainant was asked to attend conciliation proceedings. But the matter was not settled during conciliation proceedings.  Surprisingly in March 2010 the complainant received another notice through Advocate Shalvier Singh from Calicut in which it was stated that Rs.1,73,917.78 was due from the complainant.  The demand was illegal and without any basis and amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The opposite party is indulging in unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint.

2.      The opposite party contended that the dispute would not come under the purview of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  Legal action is already initiated under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act against the complainant.  In fact the complainant had availed the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and another loan of Rs.50,000/-.  The interest was variable and not at 9% per annum as alleged.  The complainant also agreed to pay penal interest at 2.5% per annum.  All the other allegations are denied. Actually as on 23.9.2010 an amount of Rs.2,20,600/- is outstanding under the transaction.  There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged.

3.      Before the Forum complainant was examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on his side.  One witness was examined on the side of the opposite party and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked.

4.      The Forum held in the absence of statement of accounts relating to the loan that the opposite party had not succeeded in proving that the amount demanded as per the notice in March 2010 was outstanding and accordingly granted relief to the complainant.  The aggrieved opposite party has come up in appeal.  The only question that arises for consideration is whether the conclusions of the Forum requires any interference.

5.      According to the complainant the total amount of loan availed by him was Rs.2,50,000/-.  It is contended by the opposite party that initially Rs.2,50,000/- was granted as loan to the complainant and later he had availed another loan of Rs.50,000/-. It is seen from Ext.B6 document produced by the opposite party that really housing loan was granted on 8.9.2004 with a limit of Rs.2,50,000/-.  There is nothing in evidence to show that really the entire loan was disbursed to the complainant initially.  Exts.B2 and B3 show that another loan of Rs.50,000/- was granted on 5.5.05.  So on the materials available it is only possible to accept the allegation that the total loan granted to the complainant was Rs.2.5.lakhs the opposite party has not produced the statement of accounts.  The opposite party has also no case that copy of statement of accounts was furnished to the complainant to convince him that the amount demanded was actually outstanding from him.  The only circumstance actually infavour of the appellant/opposite party is that as per the allegations in the complaint repayment of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.41,300/- was made towards the two loans.  This may not entirely discharge the loans. However Exts.A1 and A2 show that as on 19.11.09 the appellants demanded respectively Rs.2438/- and Rs.12,848/- only from the complainant.  There is absolutely nothing to indicate that actually more amount is due from the complainant.  The failure to furnish copy of statement of accounts to the complainant was certainly deficiency in service and it is not corrected till this date.  Under the above circumstances there is no circumstance to interfere with the conclusions of the CDRF, Kasaragod.  Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the appeal is dismissed but without costs.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.