CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 331/2009
Thursday, the 27th day of October, 2011.
Petitioner : K.V Vijayakumar,
Mundakkal House,
Poovanthuruthu P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Avaneesh V.M)
Vs.
Opposite party : Kerala Khadi Gram
Vyavasaya Board,
Vanchiyoor P.O
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Francis Thomas)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Case of the petitioner filed on 2..11..2009 is as follows.
Petitioner availed a loan from the opposite party for conducting a self employment business. The loan was sanctioned and loan amount was released through SBI Kottayam Branch. The condition between the petitioner and the opposite party is that opposite party will sanction 35% subsidy to the loan amount. Petitioner released the loan amount in 3 installment. According to the petitioner he remitted the installments without delay. Due to some financial crisis petitioner could not remit balance loan amount in time. Petitioner remitted approximately an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-. On 16..10..2009, as per the notice, opposite party demanded Rs. 13,88,971/-. According to the petitioner demand made by the opposite party is not legal and proper. On 26..10..2009 petitioner went to the office of first opposite party and demanded a statement of account with regard to the demand made by the opposite party but the opposite party had not issued the statement of
-2-
accounts. . According to the petitioner, act of the opposite party in not giving statement of account amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for direction to the opposite party to withdraw the notice dtd: 16..10..2009. Petitioner claims Rs. 2,75,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petition is barred under provisions of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The details of the loan include capital expenditure loan Rs. 3,96,500/-, Working Capital loan Rs. 2,53,500/-, Margin Money loan Rs. 2,50,500/-. Total Amount Rs. 9,00,000/- (with Margin money loan) Total amount without Margin money loan is Rs. 6,50,000/-
Complainant had repaid only Rs. 4,59,163/-. It is to be noted that while computing the requisition repayment amount is adjusted to penal interest and then to interest and then only to principle. Since the loanee failed to repay the amount. Opposite party initiated coercive steps under RR Act. The requisition details are : Principle loan amount Rs. 6,43,395/-(excluding margin money loan and repaid amount) Interest Rs. 6,23,946/- Penal interest Rs. 1,20,630/- Stationery charges: 1,000/-, Total Rs. 13,88,971/-. The authority to fix the interest rate and conditions of repayment are vested with Khadi Commission. Opposite party has to repay the entire amount back to commission with penal interest. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part of the opposite party. They pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
-3-
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 document on the side of the petitioner.
Point No. 1
Crux of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party has not given the statement of accounts to the petitioner. According to the petitioner on 24..10..2009 petitioner received a notice. Notice produced is marked as Ext. A1. After receipt of Ext. A1, on 26..10..2009, petitioner went to the branch office of the opposite party and demanded for statement of account. But opposite party had not given the statement of account. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove that he went to branch office of the opposite party and demanded for the statement of account. Admittedly the petitioner is defaulter. Opposite party in their version and counter affidavit shown the details of the statement of account. In our view petitioner fail to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of October , 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner:
Ext. A1: Demand Notice Dtd: 16..10..2009.
