D.O.F:20/07/2018

                                                                                                  D.O.O:30/11/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.119/2018

Dated this, the 30^th day of November 2021

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Sayyed Nisar. S.A aged about  28 years

S/o Aboobacker Thangal,

R/at Sadath Manzil, Naimarmoola                                    : Complainant

Vidyanagar P.O, Kasaragod District.

(Adv: Muhammed Riyas Bin Raheem)

                                                            And

South Indian Bank

Kasaragod Branch,

Golden Arcade, Near New Bus stand                  : Opposite Party

Kasaragod.

Rep: by its Authorized Officer

(Adv: O. Vinodkumar)

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER

            This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The grievance of the complainant is that after one time settlement of the loan and issuance of non due certificate Opposite Party illegally transferred Rs. 62,400/- from the account of the complainant to his loan account.  The brief facts in this case is that the complainant is an unemployed youth who planned to setup own business by availing a loan under PMEGP scheme.  The aforesaid scheme is central Government scheme for creating employment opportunities in rural and urban areas by helping entrepreneurs to set up own entrepreneurship.  The loan granted and complainant started business but he could not repay the loan as per the agreement.  There upon the complainant approached Opposite Party for one time settlement and handed over balance amount through his SB account to Opposite Party.  Complainant then collected non due certificate on 13/03/2017.  There after Opposite Party illegally deducted Rs. 62,400/- from the account of the complainant on 22/03/2017, after the issuance of NOC. 

The Opposite Party filed version stating that the allegations of the complainant is totally false baseless and lack of locustandi.  In the version Opposite Party admitted that they had granted two loans to the complainant on 11/01/2013 through CCOL A/c No 83383 for Rs. 14280/- and a FSL A/C No 682180 of Rs. 2,23,280/- both loans are granted under PMEGP scheme necessary documents are executed infavour of the bank.  Opposite Parties contentions is that complainant was very irregular in repayment of loan Opposite Party was constrained to file suit against the complainant for recovery of the loan amount before the Principle Muncif court Kasaragod.  The suit decreed.   As per decree complainant is liable to pay Rs. 2,82,606/- to the Opposite Party bank.  There after the complainant requested one time settlement and the principle Munsiff Court Kasaragod was pleased to refer the matter to the mediation centre.  In the mediation the matter was settled between parties for an amount of Rs. 1,54,700/- by sacrificing Rs.99227/- written off is but the complainant again failed to pay the aforesaid amount as agreed before the Adalath.  There upon complainant approached the Regional office of Opposite Party praying ‘one time settlement’.    Opposite Party allowed the prayer and complainant has to pay Rs. 1,54,700/- by sacrificing a total amount of Rs.1,79,675.20/- .  Thus the balance amount to be remitted by the complainant is      Rs. 62,400/- .  The complainant has not handed over the balance amount as alleged in the complainant.    Complainant remitted the amount in order to get non due certificate and after obtaining the NOC complainant alleges that Opposite Party illegally deducted the amount from his SB account. Even though loan account of the bank was closed on 30/03/2017 the judgement and decree of the principle Munsiff Court Kasaragod is pending for satisfaction.

Complainant filed proof affidavit and was cross examined as PW1.  Documents produced are marked as Ext A1 and A2. Opposite Party also filed affidavit in lieu chief examination and documents produced are marked as Ext B1 to B7.  Both sides heard and documents perused.  The main issues raised for consideration

1. Whether this complaint is maintainable in CDRC?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the bank in deducting the amount?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs?
4. If so what is the reliefs?

Issue No:1

    The learned council appeared for Opposite Party raised a contention that this complaint is not maintainable under CDRC.

    The Opposite Party filed OS 30/2016 against the complainant before the Principle Munsiff Court Kasaragod for recovery of the loan amount of Rs.2,82,606/- with future interest and costs.  But this complaint is filed by Sayyiid Nizar against the Opposite Party bank for mental agony and financial loss due to the illegal deduction of Rs.62,400/- from his SB account after the issuance of NOC  Res judicata will not attract in this matter as the reliefs sought in OS 30/2016 and this complaint different.  Moreover an aggrieved consumer can approach  this commission at any time, this is an additional remedy entitled to consumers.  So the contention raised by Opposite Party is not sustainable in this case.

     In the result this complaint is maintainable in this commission

     For convenience issue No: 2 and 3 can be discussed together.

   The complainant took PMEGP loan from Opposite Party bank to set up a business but he could not repay the loan regularly as agreed earlier and his loan account is declared as NPA. Opposite Party filed OS 30/2016 against the complainant for recovery of the loan amount with interest and cost.  The suit decreed for an amount of Rs. 2,82,606/-.  The complainant through his counsel requested to refer the matter for mediation.  The complainant failed to pay the aforesaid amount as agreed in adalath and again approached Regional office of Opposite Party bank for one time settlement.  It is also allowed and the amount is reduced as Rs. 1,54,700/-.  The suit filed account started on 01/02/2016 and the amount is Rs. 2,82,606/- on the said date.  Later on, an amount of Rs. 5000/- deposited on 07/09/2016 and an amount of Rs.24,800/- on 26/09/2016 and an amount of Rs. 62,500/- recovered to the loan account on 09/01/2017 and Rs. 62,400/- on 22/03/2017 for OTS settlement and interest on NPA reversed Rs. 28,679/- on 22/03/2017 and an amount of Rs. 99,227/- written off on 30/03/2017 and closed the account A mere reading of the suit filed account will prove the case of the Opposite Party and also disprove the case of the complainant and the case is fabricated just to make some unlawful gain to him and to disgrace the Opposite Party before the eyes of the public.  The balance amount to be remitted by the complainant is Rs.62,400/- the Opposite Party bank issued non due certificate to the complainant after marking lien on  his account.  And thus on the request of the complainant Opposite Party issued non due certificate to help the complainant to get financial assistance from some other financial institutions.  The Opposite Party bank failed to transfer the amount before issuing NOC.  Thus the amount Rs.62,400/- is debited from his SB account at the end of the month and after the issuance of NOC.  It is a mistake from the side of the then manager.    But the complainant suppressed the material facts and approached this commission for unfair advantage.  It appears that this complaint is filed on an experimental basis.  Complainant has no case that the Opposite Party bank has charged excess amount from him.  Opposite Party bank cannot transfer the amount from his SB account to suit filed account without his signature and consent.  The relief sought by the complainant is only compensation and not refund of Rs.62400/-.  Moreover the deposition of the complainant before the commission is full of contradictions and not at all reliable.  This commission entertains consumers who come with clean hands.  Here the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party bank.   Opposite Parties counsel produced several rulings to establish their contentions.  The commission gone through the facts and circumstances of those cases.  Hence we holds that complainant is not entitled get relief in this case.   Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

       Sd/-                                                 Sd/-                                            Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Exhibits

 A1- A letter Dt: 13/03/2017

A2-Statement of account

B1 & B2 – Statement of account

B3- Decree passed by the Munciff Court    

B4- Judgment copy

B5 & B6 - Statement of account.

B7- Lien maintenance account

Witness Examined

 Pw1- Sayyad Nizar S.A

Dw1- Shynish.K

     Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER                              PRESIDENT 

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/