This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay `1,00,000 with compensation and cost.

          The complainant contended that her livelihood is agriculture.  She availed two loans of `5640 for planting rubber trees and `20,000 as housing loan.  The opposite party has disbursed the amount through      5 instalments and hence she cannot used for the intended purpose.  The complainant has repaid `7000 on 31.01.2007, , `3500 on 29.01.08, `3500 on 27.02.08, `3500 on 06.08.08, `6500 and `25000 on 27.12.2010.  But on 27.01.11 the opposite party issued a notice to the complainant for paying `43,016.  As per the proclamation of sale dated 09.11.2010, it was shown that the complainant has to pay `51,500.  Later on 27.12.2010, the complainant has repaid `25,000.  But on 27.01.2011, it was shown that the complainant has to pay `43,016 and opposite party informed the complainant that the properties will be attached, if the above said amount is not paid.  The opposite parties had added exorbitant interest to the principal and that is why such an exorbitant amount was shown to be paid by the complainant to opposite party. So there is grave deficiency on the part of opposite parties.  The complainant had suffered lot of both mental, physical and financial hardships.  Hence the complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed version admitting that the complainant had availed two loans, of `5640 for rubber plantation and `20,000 as housing loan.  But it is incorrect to say that opposite party has repaid `7000 on 31.01.2007, `3500 on 29.01.08, `3500 on 27.02.08, `3500 on 06.08.08, thereafter `6500 and on 27.12.2010, `25,000.  The complainant availed a loan facility on special scheme which was formulated by NABARD and Rubber Board and on the application of this complainant, 1^st opposite party provide loan of `5640 on four instalment namely `2780 on 26.10.92, `920 on 10.06.93, `760 on 18.03.94 and `660 on 29.05.95 and `520 on 12.06.96 and is governed by Rules and regulations formulated by NABARD.  As per scheme the loan amount should be used for planting and cultivating Rubber trees and repayment towards the loan should be started after 8 years of loan sanctioning date ie during 2000.  The Housing loan availed by the complainant is also promoted by NABARD and `50,000 was sanctioned to the complainant and on the same date an amount of `20,000 was allotted and as the complainant misused the first instalment, subsequent instalments were not issued to the complainant and as per the scheme complainant has to repay as two instalments per year.  After availing the loan the complainant never paid any amount towards the loan even after getting the notice from the bank and hence bank filed complaint before sales officer as E.P.No.189/05/06 to attach and sale the complainant’s assured security.  When the sale proceedings are initiated the complainant appears and repaid `18,425 and paid `6575 towards the second loan and seek one month time for balance amount and to close the loan account.  The allegation that opposite party claimed exoribitant amount as interest is false.  The complainant paid `25,000 only after opposite party approached the sale officer. The claim amount waiver of debt under Central Government scheme is not available to her as the scheme was for the agricultural debt availed after 1^st April, 1997.  So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

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

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

2.           Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3.           Relief and cost?

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 and B1 to B5.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          The complainant contended that eventhough he had repaid major portion of the loan availed from opposite party, they are trying to persuade the complainant to pay more amount to them actually she is bound to pay.  In order to prove her case she was examined as PW1 and produced documents such as two pass books, receipts dated 31.01.2007, 29.01.2008, 27.02.2008, 06.08.2008, 27.12.2010, notice dated 27.01.2011, sale proclamation dated 15.11.2010, paper advertisement dated 18.12.2010 etc.  In order to disprove the case opposite party was also examined as DW1 and produced documents such as cash receipt dated 30.06.2010, 31.03.2011, Member liability report, copy of proclamation etc.  The opposite party admits that complainant has availed loan for rubber plantation and another one for housing loan. But according to the opposite party the loan was allowed to the complainant as per the 100% financial assistance of NABARD and hence the complainant has to abide the rules and regulation of NABARD.  The opposite party further admits the repayment towards both loans.  But the opposite party has not stated anything about the rate of interest.  So we are not in a position to calculate the actual amount due by the complainant.  But complainant admits before the Forum that regarding loan taken for rubber plantation has to be repaid after 8 years of disbursement of first instalments ie she has to repay it from 2008 onwards, since she has availed the loan during 2000.  But as per A3 it is seen that opposite party has charged 420 as penal interest.  Moreover A4 to A7 receipts shows that the opposite party has kept the amount paid by the complainant in the suspense account.  They have not credited the amount towards the loan amount on the respective dates of payment.  The reason stated by the opposite party in keeping the amount is due to case before the sale officer.  But no documents have been produced by the opposite party to show that they have either calculated the interest to the above said for payments or not calculated the interest upon the above amount from date of keeping the amount in suspense account till it was credited in the loan account. Moreover opposite party is not entitled to calculate penal interest upon default.  So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Eventhough the opposite party has contended that the loan amount is given by the NABARD, he has not produced any documents regarding, rules and regulations of the NABARD with respect to the loan.  So we are of the opinion that opposite party is liable to reconsider the loan account by recalculating the amount payable by the complainant avoiding penal interest and interest during the period the amount kept in the suspense account along with `1000 as cost of the proceedings and passed orders accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to give a calculation by recalculate the amount payable by the complainant avoiding penal interest and interest during the period the amount kept in the suspense account along with `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of this proceedings within 30 days of receipt of the order, failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

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

                     Sd/-                   Sd/-               

                           President             Member          

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1 & A2.  Passbooks.

A3 to A7 :  Receipts.

A8.  Notice

A9.   Sale declaration.

A10.  News paper – auction advertisement.

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.  Cash receipt dated 30.06.2010.

B2.  Cash receipt dated 31.03.2011.

B3.  Cash receipt dated 31.03.2011.

B4.  Member liability report.

B5.  Copy of letter by the Complainant to Bank.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  V.K. Sasidharan

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT