Kerala

Idukki

CC/09/148

Philomina John - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKIConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
Complaint Case No. CC/09/148
1. Philomina JohnMadathettu(H),PonnamalaP.O,NedumkandamIdukkiKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. SecretaryNedumkandam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.K.326,Head Office ,NedumkandamIdukkiKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE Sheela Jacob ,MemberHONORABLE Bindu Soman ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 30 Nov 2009
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.148/2009

Between

Complainant : Philomina John,

Madathettu House,

Ponnamala P.O,

Mavadi, Nedumkandam – 685 553,

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Parties :

1. The Manager,

Nedumkandam Service Co-operative Bank

Limited No.K-326,

Branch Manjappara,

Nedumkandam – 685 553,

Idukki District.

2. The Secretary,

Nedumkandam Service Co-operative Bank

Limited No.K-326,

Head Office, Nedumkandam P.O,

Nedumkandam – 685 553,

Idukki District.

 

O R D E R

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER) 

The complaint is filed against the deficiency in service of the opposite party, Co-operative Bank. The complainant is a resident of Nedumkandam Panchayath. She availed a loan of Rs.10,000/- from 1st opposite party on 31.3.2005. The complainant paid interest regularly. She paid interest Rs.850/-on 7.3.06, paid Rs.789/- on 5.3.2007 and on 28.2.2008 paid Rs.552/-. The complainant remitted only the interest of the loan. On 13.6.2007 the complainant filed an application in front of Agricultural Debt Relief Commission and on 4.8.2008, she filed an application in the District Bank Disputes Redressal Cell. On 6.5.2009 complainant received a demand notice from the opposite party demanding to pay Rs.11,330/- within 7 days. After receiving the notice the complainant approached the opposite party but have no satisfactory reply from them. The complainant is a poor agriculturist have only 50 cent of non-patta land, is not in a position to repay the amount. She expected that her loan is also come under the provisions of the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme. Bank imposed excessive interest from her and no service have rendered to write off her loan. In this circumstance, the complainant filed a petition before the Forum alleging deficiency in the service of opposite party. 

2. Opposite party filed a written version. Opposite party admitted that the complainant is having Kissan Credit Card loan of Rs.10,000/- on 31.3.2005. Her loan number is 204/05. Opposite party stated in the written version that the complainant had renewed her loan periodically. Her loan had renewed upto 6.3.2007. Bank had never charged high interest. Only agreed rate of interest was charged on loan. Opposite party stated in the written version that Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme of Central Government was came into force in 2008. According to the provisions of the scheme, loans which are pending upto 2007 and loans which are taken between 31.3.1997 and 31.3.2007 will come under the provisions of this scheme. Complainant’s loan is not a pending one. It was renewed yearly. Bank had made an agreement with the complainant. The agreed rate of interest is 8.5%, but on 1.4.2008, the bank reduced rate of interest to 5.5%. That reduced rate is imposed on complainant’s loan.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to? 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. P1 to Ext.P5(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite party has no oral evidence and Ext.R1 to R7 marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

5. The POINT :- The complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P5. Opposite party has no oral evidence. In this case, adopted opposite party’s deposition in CC. No.147/09. While cross examination of the complainant, the opposite party marked Ext.R1 to Ext.R7. Ext.P1 is a demand notice received by the complainant. Ext. P2 is a petition of the complainant filed before opposite party bank. Ext.P3 is its reply. Complainant filed a petition in the Nodal Officer of the bank, Ext.P4(a) and Ext.P4(b) are the postal Acknowledgement Due Card and receipt of that petition. Cash Receipts of complainant in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 are marked as Ext.P5(series). Ext.R1 is the bond signed by the complainant. Ext.R2 is also a bond signed by the complainant. Ext.R3 is a pro-note signed by the complainant. Ext.R4 is the loan application of the complainant. Ext.R5, Ext.R6 and Ext.R7 are cheque leaves of the complainant.

PW1’s deposition clearly revealed that her loan is not a pending one. Every year she renewed her loan by paying interest. Loan had taken on 31.3.2005 for Rs.10,000/-. The complainant paid interest on 7.3.2006 and 5.3.2007. Up to 5.3.2008, her loan is not a defaulted one. As per provisions of the Debt Relief Commission, loans which defaulted on 31st December, 2007 and which are due on 29.2.2008 will come under the provisions of this scheme. The opposite party is a Service Co-operative Bank. A banking institution has their own rules and conditions. So we think that there is no deficiency in the part of opposite parties.

Hence the petition is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the opposite parties.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2009

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

       

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Philomina John

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - K.C.Chacko

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Demand Notice dated 6.05.2009 issued by the Ist opposite party

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Notice dated 17.06.2009 issued by the complainant to the Ist opposite party

Ext.P3 - Reply letter dated 13.07.2009 issued by the Ist opposite party

Ext.P4 - AD Card of complainant’s letter addressed to the Nodal Officer of the Idukki District Co-operative Bank, Vazhathoppu

Ext.P4(a) - Postal Receipt of complainant’s letter addressed to the Nodal Officer of the Idukki District Co-operative Bank, Vazhathoppu

Ext.P5(a) - Receipt dated 7.03.2006 for Rs.850/-

Ext.P5(b) - Receipt dated 5.03.2007 for Rs.789/-

Ext.P5(c) - Receipt dated 28.02.2008 for Rs.552/-

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Bond dated 5.03.2005 executed by the complainant

Ext.R2 - Photocopy of Bond dated 7.03.2005 executed by the complainant

Ext.R3 - Photocopy of Pro-note signed by the complainant

Ext.R4 - Photocopy of Application for Kissan Credit Card/Overdraft

Ext.R5 - Photocopy of Cheque leaf dated 7.03.2005 for Rs.10,000/-

Ext.R6 - Photocopy of Cheque leaf dated 11.03.2006 for Rs.10,000/-

Ext.R7 - Photocopy of Cheque leaf dated 6.03.2007 for Rs.10,000/-


 

 


 


 


 


 


 

 


[HONORABLE Sheela Jacob] Member[HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Bindu Soman] Member