SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for realization of excess amount collected from him compensation costs. Etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the opp.party bank. The loan amount was to be repaid in 36 monthly instalments . But after availing the loan due to financial difficulties he could not repay the amount. While so, on 26.2.2007 he received a notice from the opp.party bank requiring him to pay Rs. 4,36,643/- within 7days, failing which arbitration proceedings will be initiated . The complainant disposed of his property for a meager sum for repaying the loan amount and he repaid the loan amount in full. For the benefit under one time settlement he approached the Joint Registrar of Co-operative societies, Kollam who accorded sanction to settle the loan as per circular No.59/06. As per the terms of the circular 30% from the loan amount and 30% from the interest accrued have to be deducted. But the opp.party without complying with that direction collected Rs.4,27,000/- from the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair business transaction. He is entitled to get the excess amount collected with compensation and costs. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending, interalis, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The averments in para 2 is partly correct. The complainant after availing loan has not repaid any amount towards the loan amount and therefore notice was issued to him. The averments in para 3 are false and hence denied. The complainant approached the Joint Registrar seeking permission to settle the loan under OTC under Circular No.,59/06 and as per the direction issued by the Joint Registrar, the opp.parties gave all eligible deductions to the complainant. As per circular 59/06 penal interest, compound interest etc. are to be deducted and after deducting all these the complainant was to remit Rs.4,26,921/-. The loan amount of the complainant was settled under clause 10 of circular No.59/06 excluding penal interest, compound interest, other charges etc. in accordance with the stipulation in circular No.59/06. There is no provision in the above circular to grant 30% deduction on the principle amount and the interest accrued. The complainant has not produced any circular allowing 30 % deduction in the principle amount and interest. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get 30% discount in the principle amount and interest as alleged? 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties? 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P7 are marked For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D4 are marked. Points: As a matter of fact the availing of loan is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the complainant was a defaulter and he has paid the amount under the provisions of one time settlement in accordance with Ext. D3 circular. The contention of the complainant is that he is eligible to get 30%discount as per the order of the Joint Registrar and Ext. D3 circular. However he has not produced the order issued by the Joint Registrar or the circular authorizing such 30 % deduction. The definite contention of the opp.party is that there is no circular ever issued by the Government or the Registrar of Co-operative Societies giving 30% deduction in the principle amount and interest. Ext. D3 would show that no such provision is there. The deduction allowed in Ex.D3 Circular is penal interest, compound interest, other charges etc and no deduction in the principle amount or the interest accrued is allowed. Then the complainant alleges that he has been given 30% deduction in the principle amount and the interest by the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies as per Ext. D3. The burden is on him to establish that aspect by cogent material which he failed to discharge. It is to be noted that the complainant also is claiming the benefit under the provisions of Ext. D3 circular. The learned counsel for the opp.party would argue that the complainant is entitled to get the benefit only in accordance with the clause 10 of the Ext. D3 which does not authorized the benefit of 30% deduction in the principle amount or the interest. The Ext. D4 shows that the opp.party has collected the amount as per the stipulation in Ext. D3. The complainant in our view failed to establish that there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opp.party. From the available evidence now before us we find that no excess amount has been collected from the complainant by the opp.parties and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opp.parties. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009. I N D E XList of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – G. Sundaresan List of documents for thecomplainant P1. – Pass book P2. – Registered notice P3. – Cop0y of Petition P4. – Legal notice P5. – Postal receipt P6. – Acknowledgement card P7. –nCopy of surrender card List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Vijayakumari Amma List of documents for the opp.party D1. - Venkada pathram D2. – Eradavu Register D3. – Circular No.59/06 D4. – Copy of receipt | 
