IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 474/09 DATED 22.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri. M. Anandachar S/o late Mathachar, R/at D.No.1229, Irwin Road, 1st Cross, Mysore-21.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. N. Gowrishankar)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The Manager, Mysore & Chamarajanagara District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Nehru Circle, Mysore.<br /> 2. The Managing Director, Mysore & Chamarajanagara District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Nehru Circle, Mysore.<br /> 3. The Auditor, Mysore & Chamarajanagara District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Nehru Circle, Mysore.<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 16.12.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : <br /> Date of order : 22.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction to return all the original documents taken at the time of sanctioning the loan in the year 1997 and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss, hardship and agony suffered.<br /> <br /> 2. The complaint runs into nine pages. Narrating various facts. Thoroughly we have gone through the same. Mention of entire facts, at this stage is not necessary. Considering the allegations made in the complaint and the submission made by the learned advocate, we heard him regarding maintainability and admissibility of the complaint and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 3. Now, we have to consider whether the complainant has prima-facie made out that, the complaint is maintainable?<br /> <br /> 4. For the following reasons our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. In the substance, according to the complainant in the year 1997, he had borrowed loan from the first opposite party bank and he has repaid and as such, he has sought a direction to return all the original documents, which were received by the bank at the time of sanction of the loan.<br /> <br /> 6. Even though, the complainant alleges that, he has repaid the loan, from the documents that he has produced, it is found that, still huge amount remained due from him to the first opposite party bank. A Xerox copy of statement of account is produced and on that basis the complainant claims, there is no due. This statement is not issued by the first opposite party bank, but one Chartered Accountant by name A.U. Prakash, who has certified that, the arithmetical accuracy of the computation of interest as detailed in the statement and the rate of interest applied are as per the details given by the complainant. Hence, what details were given to the complainant, a statement is preferred by the Chartered Accountant. On that basis considering other material on record, it cannot be said that, the complainant has paid or cleared the entire loan.<br /> <br /> 7. The records produced by the complainant himself establish that, he had availed loan from the first opposite party bank, in the year 1997 and because, it was not paid, before the arbitrator or officer, a dispute was filed and an award dated 29.02.2009 was obtained, for a sum of Rs.6,09,581/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as well as 2% penal interest. Hence, it is clear that, there is an award or order by the competent Authority wherein the amount due by the complainant to the opposite party bank has been determined nearly 9 years back. As noted above, the award was for more than Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 18% + 2% and if that is calculated, the amount may be much more than the amount mentioned in the award itself. Hence, unless it has been proved by the complainant that as per the said award he has repaid the entire loan, his contention that, there is no due, is without substance.<br /> <br /> 8. We do consider that, some amount has been paid by the complainant to the first opposite party bank. However, also it is true that, the complainant had filed writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, which have been disposed given certain direction to the first opposite party bank. But, so for concerned to present case, unless it is made out by the complainant that, as per the award, entire amount has been paid to the first opposite party bank, as prayed by the complainant, no direction can be given to return all the original documents as sought in the present complaint.<br /> <br /> 9. It is submitted and alleged by the complainant that, the first opposite party bank has not furnished the documents or details of the amount due. Firstly, there is letter of the first opposite party bank that the document which were sought have been furnished. Added to it, when already an award has been passed, there will be no further question, calling upon to first opposite party to submit account extract, how much amount is due ete.,. At the cost of repetition, already there is decision as to how much amount with interest the complainant has to pay to the first opposite party bank. The records also disclose that, the complainant had challenged the said arbitration award before the KAT and that has been dismissed. Hence, the said award has become final. Also, it appears, because the award amount was not paid, a notice regarding auction was issued in the execution petition and that was also challenged before the Hon’ble High Court, Karnataka. It is observed by the Hon’ble High Court in the order that, prayer of the present complaint in the said writ petition has become infructuous etc.,.<br /> <br /> 10. Incidentally, it is relevant to note that, the allegations made in paragraph 12 of the complaint, which reads thus;<br /> <br /> “It is very humbly submitted that, the complainant being the Consumer, the opposite parties have been:<br /> <br /> (a) adopting unfair practices by:- (1) not disclosing the details regarding the Rate of interest imposed before and after declaration of NPA; (2) not accounting the funds i.e., the DD given before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Dtd. 05.10.2005 for four years intentionally with the ill conceived motive make unlawful profit; (3) misusing the funds that were paid on 05.10.2005 for over 4 years; (4) charging interest even on the said amount paid through DD for four years; (5) deliberately with holding the just and proper statement of accounts; (6) deliberately giving False Accounts to make unlawful profit; (7) tampering with the Accounts; (8) making false claims; (9) adopting coercive methods to extract payments without maintaining or furnishing proper account; (10) making misrepresentations as to false claims.<br /> (b) Deficient in Service by (1) lethargic dispositions; (2) incompetent handling of Accounts; (3) deliberate practice to make unlawful gain;<br /> © derelictions of duty and negligence in not maintaining proper account.<br /> (d) adopting to unethical practice.<br /> (e) Unprofessional conduct.<br /> (f) over charging of interest and compounding of interest against the provisions of Law., etc have made the complainant to suffer for a long period of time”.<br /> <br /> 11. Also it is to be noted that, the third opposite party is the Auditor of the first opposite party bank. Absolutely no deficiency in service against him is attributed.<br /> <br /> 12. Considering the facts and material on record, we are of the opinion that, the present complaint is not maintainable to grant the reliefs sought by the complainant. The complainant having borrowed loan in the year 1997, an arbitration award was passed nearly 9 years back and even execution petition was filed and auction notice was issued and so also the complainant filed writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and thereafter, present complaint is filed without making prima-facie case of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence, the following order. <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/-. The complainant shall deposit the cost into the Legal Aid Account of this Forum within a month from the date of the order, failing which action will be taken for non compliance of the order provided Under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to complainant according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 22nd December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />