KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO: 643/2010

 JUDGMENT DATED: 01-04-2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

1.      The Senior Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Pallikandy Branch,

Parappil Francis Road, Calicut.

                                                                   : APPELLANTS

2.      M/s Punjab National Bank,

R/by its Regional Manager,

Bypass Road, Govindapuram,

Calicut.

(By adv.Sri.P.Balakrishnan)

          Vs.

P.C. Abdul Latheef,

S/o A.V.Shaik Mamu,

Chief News Bureau,                                  : RESPONDENT

Chandrika Daily,14/286, Rajab West Kallai,

Calicut – 673 003.

(By Adv.Sri.Mohandas)

                                                         JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.238/04 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode.  The appellants are under orders to close the loan amount with respect to the complainant and return of the documents deposited by the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.500/-.

2.      The matter is with respect to the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties/bank authorities in not properly accounting the amounts remitted towards the loan dues of Rs.1,30,000/- availed on 20/2/1995.  According to the complainant the repayment period of the loan was for a period of 156 months (13 years) with the monthly instalment of Rs.1,800/- and interest at the rate of Rs.15.5%/floating rate.  According to the complainant he has remitted the monthly instalment in time and in full.  The opposite parties are demanding more amounts.

3.      On the other hand, the opposite parties have contended that the period of repayment was 180 months and the instalments at the rate of Rs.1870.70 with interest at 15.5%.  According to the opposite parties, the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.73,493/- more as on 30/9/2004.

4.      Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A26 and B1.

5.      We find that the complainant has filed a rejoinder and opposite party filed a counter statement.   The above has not been considered by the Forum.  The Forum has not considered the documents produced by the opposite parties.  The judgment of the Munsiff Court relied on is not seen marked.  The Forum has allowed the complaint only on the basis of the judgment of the Munsiff Court.  It is submitted by the opposite party that the appeal filed over the decision of the Munsiff Court is pending.  We find that the matter requires detailed consideration.  The order of the Forum did not contain any application of mind with respect to the contentions of the respective sides as well as the documents produced.  It has to be noted that in the counter statement filed by the opposite party in answer to the rejoinder it is mentioned that Nedungadi Bank from which the complainant availed the loan was subsequently amalgamated with Punjab National Bank and that of the interest rates were reduced thereafter to 10.5%.  In the circumstances we find that the matter requires further consideration by the Forum.  The order of the Forum is set aside.  The Forum is directed to dispose of the matter afresh on merits.  The matter is remitted back to the Forum.  The case stands posted before the Forum on 10/5/2011.

Office will forward the LCR along with copy of this judgment to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.