IN THE CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE  23^rd    DAY OF  MARCH , 2013

Present: Smt. G.Vasanthakumari,President

Adv.Ravisusha, Member

I.A.NO.367/2012 IN C.C.NO.301/2012

SRI. N.JAYACHANDRAN,

VANCHIVILA VEEDU,

 KARAMKODE.P.O,

  CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM                    - COMPLAINANT

 (ADV.S.SIVARAJ, KOLLAM )

V/S

1.     THE SECRETARY,

CHATHANNOOR  SERVICE  CO-OPERATIVE  BANK,

CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM

2.     SALE OFFICER,

CHATHANNOOR  SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,\

CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM.

(ADV.ADARSH,KOLLAM)       -OPPOSITE PARTY

ORDER

SMT.G.VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT

This IA has been put  in by the counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 and 2 praying  to hear the maintainability of the complaint as the preliminary issue  alleging  that the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from  the 1^st 

                                                                        (2)

opposite party  for the reconstruction of his  house and not for investing the same in the business conducted by his wife as alleged  in the  complaint, that due to non-payment of loan  installments, the 1^st opposite party  initiated  arbitration proceedings  against   the complainant and an Award was passed on 29/03/2012 in favour of the 1^st opposite party that the complainant  filed this complaint  by  suppressing all these material facts, that the  one and only intention behind this complaint is to stay the execution proceedings initiated by the 1^st opposite  party against the complainant, that the allegation to the effect that the opposite party has not  given the details of the loan repayment and interest  to the complainant is also false, that the complainant neither filed any  application nor approached the bank for the above purpose that complainant has not claimed any  relief against the 2^nd opposite party, that moreover no complaint is maintainable against the 2^nd opposite party without challenging the arbitration award  that the complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands and  the averments in the complaint are utter false and for that ground itself this complaint  is not maintainable, that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties against this complainant ,that the alleged deficiency  of service is false and unsustainable and in the above circumstances this complaint is liable to be dismissed without going into the merits   of the above complaint, otherwise  irreparable  injury and loss will be sustained  to the opposite parties.

            Complainant filed objection contending that  the complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs from  the first opposite party and agreed  to  repay the same in sixty instalments,  that  it is  pertinent to note that the loan was availed on 14.02.2011,  that  shows he had taken the loan  only around 2 years back that the complainant  is ready  and willing to pay  back, the loan amount along with the admissible interest with in the stipulated time that  however the   first opposite party has   compelled the complainant  to repay the loan in violation  of the  terms of the agreement dated 14.02.2011,  that as part of this the first opposite party had  forwarded the matter to the second opposite party for compelling  the complainant to make the repayment, that the notice sent by  the first opposite party stating that they had enhanced the  rate of interest than  

                                                                        (3)

agreed between  the complainant and first opposite party while executing the mortgage deed and by knowing this fact the complainant had filed a detailed objection before the second opposite party with respect to loan account, but the opposite party had denied the request of  the complainant  and directed to pay the entire sum as  it is shown in the notice that the amount shown  in the notice is exorbitant  and the complainant is not  liable to pay the said  sum that the opposite party have no manner of right to enhance the rate of interest arbitrarily that  this shows  deficiency in service and unfair Trade practice on  the opposite parties that  to the above said reason this complainant had filed this complaint before the Hon’ble  Forum   and it is also pertinent to note that even after  receiving the   notice from this  forum    the opposite party had not taken any measures to produce a correct  statement of account with  respect to the loan account as prayed for  and the IA is  only to be dismissed.

            The only point   that arises for   consideration is :-

“ Whether the complaint  is maintainable  or  not?

The point:- Heard.  Opposed    on the  ground that  he has   availed  a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the 1^st opposite party   Bank by  mortgaging his property to invest   into the business of his wife and not for  reconstruction of his house, that the  amount is to be  repaid in  sixty   instalments but  before  that 1^st opposite party  issued   notice to remit the amount with enhanced  rate of interest  at the rate of 16 % , that    the  complainant  requested  to  issue  a statement of account, but  not  issued , and hence  there is deficiency in service  and the complaint is maintainable before   this Forum.

            Along with the complaint, complainant  has not  produced any document to  substantiate his claim; but  the opposite party at the  time of hearing produced the copy of statement of accounts which is marked as Ext.D1.

                                                                        (4)

 In Ext.D1 the purpose  of the loan is shown as reconstruction of the house and not as alleged by the complainant.  According to the opposite parties due to non payment of  loan  installments they initiated  arbitration  proceedings against the complainant  and an award passed  on 29-03-2012  in favour of them  and they initiated execution proceedings and inorder to defeat  the same  complainant  filed this complaint suppressing  material  facts.  Ext.D1 shows that  after  availing the loan  for Rs. 4 lakhs  on 14-02-2011, complainant  remitted  only Rs. 5397/- on 3.11.2011 in loan amount and Rs. 4603/- towards interest on 16.03.2011 and the balance loan amount  and interest  is outstanding  .  In HDFC Bank  limited  rep. V. Yarlagadda Krishna Murthy (2013(1) CPR129 ( A.P.) it has been  held  that “ after award   passed by Arbitrator  consumer Forum  cannot decide complaint”.  In the case on  hand also Arbitrator   passed an award on 29-03-2012  for Rs. 457453/- and pending  in execution.  So this complaint  is  not maintainable  before this Forum.  Even otherwise, there is not even a scrap of paper to show that the complainant demanded  copy of statement  of accounts   and 1^st opposite party denied  the same.  There is specific  provision in co-operative  societies Act enabling the complainant  to verify his statement of accounts.  He has no case  that he approached the  bank to verify his account  and they denied the opportunity.  So also he can apply for the same under the provisions of Right to Information Act.  He  has also no case that he requested  for the copy  of statement on that line  and opposite party  denied the same.  As  a whole we can see  that the complainant has approached this Forum suppressing material  facts  and with unclean hands and with intention to protract  the execution of the  award  passed by the  Arbitrator.  If follows that  this  complaint is not maintainable before  this Forum .  Hence  the IA is allowed.

            Dated this the 23^rd     day of March, 2013.                                                    

G. VASANTHAKUMARI                

                                                                                    Adv.RAVI SUSHA

APPENDIX

Exbt.D1- Statement  of Accounts