DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 10^thday of August2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                Date of filing:  13/02/2017

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

CC/35/2017

Shine Francis,

S/o K.K.Francis,

Kalathiparambil House,

Dhoni (PO), Palakkad

PIN – 678 009.                                                                -  Complainant

(By party in person)

                                                 Vs

Puduppariyaram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd,

F-1509, Puduppariyaram.

Puduppariyaram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, - Opposite parties

F-1509, Puduppariyaram.

                                                           O R D E R

By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member

          Complainant has two gold loan accounts with the Hemambika Nagar Branch of the opposite party bank.  The complainant went to the Hemambika Nagar Branch in the middle of November 2016 and offered to renew one of his overdue account.  But the staff of the said branch informed him that after the demonetization all the transactions of the co-operative banks are suspended temporarily and asked him to wait till the regular work is resumed.  The complainant further submits that the employee of the bank informed him that the bank will not collect interest for this period.  After a month, in January 2017 the complainant again went to the bank to close one of his overdue loan account and the staff insisted him to close all his overdue loan account.  The complainant submits that it caused humiliation and mental strain to him.  He issued a notice to the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  He received a reply notice from the opposite party but, he states that it was only a blank green colour sheets and nothing was written on it.  Hence he had approached before this Forum for the redressal of his grievance and also seeking an order directing the opposite parties to exempt him from payment of interest, and also claiming damages from the opposite parties. 

          The opposite parties entered appearance upon notice from the forum and filed version stating that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.  The opposite parties are unaware of the alleged incidents till they receive the notice and the complaint.  The complainant never approached or informed the opposite parties for redressal of his grievance and further contended that the allegations are the later creations of the complainant.  The opposite parties are working in the main branch at Puduppariyaram and they were unaware of the alleged incident.  The contention in the complaint that father of the complainant came to the bank for renewing the gold loan account of the complainant and the staff of the bank declined to renew the accounts in the absence of the complainant and further informed him that interest can be remitted is not aware by the opposite parties.  The loan accounts are renewed on the basis of the written request made by the respective account holders.  In such circumstances the allegations that an unidentified staff turned down the request made by the father of the complainant to renew the loan account of his son is unbelievable.  The opposite parties specifically denies the contentions of the complainant that he came to the opposite party bank in the middle of the November 2016 to renew his account and one of the employee of the bank informed him that no transaction is taking place because of demonetization is incorrect.  It is true that the Central Government and RBI imposed certain restriction on the banking transactions of the co-operative banks in Kerala for a short period.  There was no restrictions on the transaction in the accounts which were complied with the KYC norms.  On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties made enquiry among the staff of the bank but they were also unaware of the alleged incident.  Had the alleged incident been informed in time, the opposite parties would have taken immediate steps to redress his grievances.  In the absence of such intimation the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice alleged against the opposite parties are not sustainable.  The opposite parties sent a prompt reply to the complainant and it was served on him.  He had filed the complaint with some hidden motive.  On perusal of the complaint and the allegations contained therein, would reveal that the very intention of the complainant is to get himself exempted from payment of interest due on his gold loan accounts by putting blame on the unknown employee of the bank and raising false allegations against the opposite party bank itself.  Hence the complaint had to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party. 

          Complainant had filed an application as IA/93/17 so as to stop the auction of gold ornaments by the opposite parties.  Since no counter was filed to the above IA  application was allowed vide separate order.  Complainant filed chief affidavit and an application to amend the complaint and also for cause production of documents and CCTV footage by the opposite parties.  Amendment applications was allowed and consequently the amendment was carried out.  Opposite parties also filed their chief affidavit.  Complainant filed application seeking permission to cross examine the opposite party.  Opposite party also filed application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant.  Complainant was cross examined as PW1.  Exts.A1 to A4 was marked from the side of the complainant.  Exts.B1 to B3 was marked from the side of the opposite parties.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. 

The following issues that arise for consideration are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

          We have perused affidavit as well as documents produced before this Forum.  According to the complainant he had availed two gold loans from the opposite party bank.  His allegation is that he went to the Hemambika Nagar Branch of the bank in the middle of November 2016 and offered to renew one of his overdue account.  But, the staff of the said branch informed him that after the demonetization all the transaction of the co-operative banks are suspended temporarily and asked him to wait till the regular work is resumed.  The complainant further contended that the employee of the bank informed him that the bank will not collect interest for this period.  The next allegation is that after one month, in January 2017 he again went to the bank to close one of his overdue loan account and the staff asked him to close all his overdue account which caused him humiliation and mental strain.  According to the opposite party there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.  The opposite parties are unaware of the alleged incident till the notice and the complaint.  The complainant never approached or informed the opposite parties for getting his grievances redressed and further contended that the allegations are the later creations of the complainant.  According to the opposite parties the complainant is not a consumer since he had not paid any consideration for the service.  The Exts.produced by the opposite party, Exts.B1 & B2 would disclose that he failed to repay the loan amount in time and the accounts became overdue.  The complainant is a willful defaulter of the two gold loan accounts.  He had availed two gold loans, one is agricultural gold loan and another is a special gold loan, from the Hemambika Nagar Branch of the opposite party (Puduppariyaram Service Co-operative bank).  The gold loans are for a very short period there is a particulars of two gold loan accounts which was marked as Ext.B1 & B2 will go to show that the Ext.B1 is for a period of six months.  The entries in Ext.B1 would disclose that the loan was taken on 28.03.2016 and the due date for closing it was on 28.09.2016.  The second loan  was a special gold loan (Ext.B2) was for a period of 3 months the entries in Ext.B2 would disclose that the second loan was taken on 29.07.2016 and the due date for closing it was on 29.10.2016.  The Exts.B1 & B2 would further disclose that the complainant has not paid any amount in the loan accounts on or before the dates of its closing thus the complainant is a willful defaulter as he failed to close his loan accounts promptly.  Hence he is not entitled to get any service from the opposite party bank.  Later on 09.10.2016 the complainant paid Rs.1,533/- towards interest in the first loan account when the auction notice was served on him.  But he deliberately declined to close the loan account which were overdue for closing.  Hence the interest again started to accrue from 09.10.2016 onwards in the first account.  The complainant has not paid any amount in the second gold loan account.  The above said two gold loan accounts were the Non Performing Assets (NPA) of the opposite party.  The bank was forced to sell the gold ornaments deposited by the complainant in the auction for the recovery of the loan amount.  The bank sent intimation to the complainant informing him of the date of auction then the complainant issued a notice on 21.01.2017 alleging deficiency in service and filed the complaint.  The intention of the complainant was to prolong the closing of the accounts further.  Now for nearly two years complainant has not closed the gold loan account which were granted for short periods.  The opposite party alleges that the delay in closing the loan account on its due dates would caused much loss to the bank as well as the public since they are dealing with the money collected from the depositors and the shareholders.  Moreover, the complainant has not informed the opposite parties of the alleged visit of November 2016 till 21.01.2017.  The complainant is a practicing advocate and is well aware of the procedures in the banking sector.  If he had experienced any such indecent behavior from the side of the employees of the bank he ought to have informed of his grievances to the opposite parties immediately.  But he failed to do so.  Had the alleged incident been informed the opposite parties would have taken immediate steps to redress his grievances.  In the absence of such an intimation the allegation of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice alleged against the opposite parties cannot be believed.  The allegation is a later creation as an attempt to evade payment of interest.  The demonetization and its effect can be taken Judicial notice of it because it is the decision of the Central Government.  The second contention of the complainant is that he visited the branch of the opposite party in January 2017 and the staff refused to close one overdue account and asked him to close other overdue loan account.  On receipt of the notice opposite parties conducted an enquiry and found that the complainant came to close one of the overdue account and demanded return of the ornaments pledged.  The staff informed him that the gold ornaments will be released only on closing of all the overdue accounts.  Then the complainant asked the staff to cancel the receipt and he left the bank without any amount.  The complainant had not adduced any evidence to the effect that the staff of the opposite party humiliated him and he had suffered financial loss and mental loss due to the above act.  Since the complainant is a defaulter he cannot claim any service from the bank.  Moreover, at the time of cross examination the complainant had admitted that he filed the complaint when the staff demanded payment of overdues in the accounts.  He deposed in the cross examination that “c­v a/c HmhÀUyqkv t¢mkv sN¿Wsa¶pw \hw_À apX ]enibpw A{KnIĨd tem¬  Bhiys¸«p.  AXns\XpSÀ¶mWv ]cmXn sImSp¯Xv”.  (Page 5 lines 9 to 13)  The complainant is also well aware that mere closing of one account will not entitle him to release the pledged articles from the account.  At the time of the cross examination the complainant admitted that “H¶n IqSpX a/cs overdue BsW¦n Hcp A¡u­n am{Xw kwJy AS¨v t¢mkv sNbvXm skIyqcnänbmbn h¨ km[\§Ä Xncn¨v sImSp¡mdnÃ.  FÃm overdue a/cs Dw t¢mkv sNbvXm am{Xsa km[\§Ä Xncn¨psImSp¡mdpÅq F¶ Imcyw F\n¡v Adnbmw.  ]e A¡u­pIfnepw HmhÀUyq BsW¦n Hcp A¡u­n am{Xw AS¨m skIyqcnän Xncn¨psImSp¡mdnà F¶Xv _m¦nsâ t\mwkv BWv F¶v ]dbp¶Xv icnbmbncn¡mw”.  (Page 7 lines 5 to 12 & 17 to 22) 

          In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant  failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 10^th day of August 2018.

                                                                                                     Sd/-

 Shiny.P.R

                   President 

                        Sd/-       

                   Suma.K.P

                    Member

           Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                   Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 series-  Notice dated.21.01.17 sent by the complainant to the opposite party

   along with acknowledgment card and postal receipt

Ext.A2 series -  Blank reply notice sent by opposite party to the complainant

                       (2 pages)

Ext.A3          -  Auction notice dated.18.09.2017 sent by the opposite party to the
             complainant

Ext.A4          - Auction notice dated.18.09.2017 sent by the opposite party to the
             complainant

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 -  Loan Ledger report of the complainant

Ext.B2 -  Loan Ledger report of the complainant

Ext.B3 -  Reply sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated.01.02.2017

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1   -  Shine Francis

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost

          Nil