This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 25,000 as compensation.

          The complainant’s case is that he is a member of opposite party bank and had availed a loan by mortgaging his property.  The complainant had defaulted some payments and the opposite party had levied penal interest for the same.  This act of opposite party is a wrongful act and against law.  Moreover the complainant had purchased 5% share at the time of availing loan.  But has not paid the interest towards the amount.  Further the bank has not accounted the subsidy as per the law.  Above all the opposite party had released the mortgage by way of four released deed instead of one and the complainant had sustained a loss of `4,000 due to this act of opposite party.  So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and had sustained a total loss of `25,000.  Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed their version.  According to opposite party the complainant is a member of opposite party and a dispute between member of a co-operative society and a society can be adjudicated only by the Co-operative Arbitration court and hence the Forum lacks the jurisdiction to try the case.  The opposite party admits that the complainant had availed loan and he defaulted to pay the loan and its interest and the opposite party has collected defaulted interest are admitted by opposite party.  But it is incorrect to say that opposite party is not legally entitled to collect overdue interest and it entitled to get interest upon 5% share value and no subsidy were granted to the complainant and released the mortgage by way of four release deed and incurred `4000 and hence complainant suffered a total loss of `25,000 etc are false and denied by the opposite party.

          The complainant had availed 6 separate loans from opposite party on different occasions. When the loan No.K10 coconut became overdue in the year 1995, its overdue transferred to another loan as requested by the opposite party.  Another loan S-10 Diary availed on 17.11.95 was closed by the complainant and its Gahan no. is 142/95.  The third loan S529M1 availed on 17.11.95 was overdue from 2000 onwards.  Its overdue till 2005 was transferred to another loan for a sum of `4800 and in this loan subsidy was given for the interest. The further loan availed on 13.10.1997 was overdue from 2002 onwards and it was closed on 15.01.2011.  It’s gahan number is 90/97.   The fifth and sixth loans availed on 21.03.2005 with gahan no.144-2005 for a sum of `31,200 and `9800 was closed by through, write off.  The loans were granted to the complainant through 4 gahans. So normally a single ozhimury cannot be executed for 4 different gahans, because the date of loan, rate of loan amount, rate of interest and the period of loan etc will be different in 4 loans. There will be a nominal cost for executing ozhimury deeds and it will not go beyond 150 per ozhimury including the charge for documents and the bank has been collecting only a sum of `70 being the charge of ozhimury.  The complainant had obtained `3975 being interest subsidy in agricultural loan scheme in respect of loans S.529ML and K10 coconut.  So the allegation that no subsidy has been granted is absolutely false.  An amount of `47,438 was given as write off to the complainant and as such he has received a sum of `51,413 as concession towards his loans.  No member is eligible to concession in respect of default interest when he receives the write off as well as subsidy interest.   There is no provision in any law or rule to grant interest upon share value of member.   The banks used to give dividend upon such shares in case of profit business.  So complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.     Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to try the case.

2.     Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

3.     Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

4.     Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1.

Issue No.1 :

          The opposite party in the above case contended that the dispute is between the member and the co-operative society.  There are other remedies available and is not maintainable before the Forum.  But in Secretary Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Ltd Vs M. Lalitha the Hon’ble Supreme court held that the Section 69 of co-operative society has not ousted the jurisdiction of the Forum and complaint filed before the Forum is maintainable which has reported in 2004(1)CPR35(SC).  So we are of the opinion that the complaint is maintainable before the Forum and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

          The further case of the complainant is that the opposite parties has levied penal interest, not accounted subsidy; not paid interest for share amount and executed four release deed for four gahan which caused financial loss to the complainant .  In order to prove his case complainant was examined as PW1 and produced the passbook. In order to disprove the case opposite party was examined as DW1.  The complainant has not produced any document to show that the bank has levied penal interest, not accounted subsidy etc.  The opposite part contended that they have levied only defaulted interest for the amount of which payment was defaulted by the complainant and also subsidy was allowed for which the concerned authorities have sanctioned subsidy.  In order to disprove the complainant not taken any steps either to call for relevant documents or produced any receipt through which he has made payment.  So it is seen that the complainant failed miserably to substantiate his above case.   Another allegation put forwarded by the complainant is that he is holding 5% share of the bank and the bank is not giving any interest for share amount.  But according to opposite party they used to give dividend  when the bank is on profit and there is no provision to pay interest on the share amount.  The law also not permit to give interest on share amount.  Yet another contentions put forwarded by the complainant is that bank had compelled to execute four release deed instead of one.  According to opposite party they have to execute four release deed since there exist four gahan having different loan number, different dates etc.  But the complainant deposed before the Forum that “4 Klm-\m-b-Xp-sIm­v 4 Hgn-ap-dn-I-fn-eqsS am{Xta hkvXp Xcm³ ]äp-I-bp-ffq F¶p ]d-ªm icn-bm-Wv.  4 tem¬ Bb-Xp-sIm-­mWv 4
Hgn-apdn shbvt¡­n h¶-sX¶pw CXp _m¦nsâ `mK¯p \n¶p-­mb deficiency Aà F¶p ]d-ªm icn-bm-Wv.”  So the complainant deposed against his case.  There is no documents before us to show that the bank can release the 4 gahan by executing single release deed.  So the complainant miserably failed to substantiate his case and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

        Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2012.

                    Sd/-                         Sd/-

       President                  Member                   

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Loan Passbook

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant.

Witness examined for the opposite party

DW1. Madhusoodanan C.V.

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT