Kerala

Wayanad

CC/10/237

George,Vazhapally House,Palakolly PO,Pulpally. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary,Mullankolly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd,Padichira PO,Pulpally. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jun 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/237
 
1. George,Vazhapally House,Palakolly PO,Pulpally.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Secretary,Mullankolly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd,Padichira PO,Pulpally.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:


 

The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for denying the benefit of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme of the Central Government for the gold loan.


 

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant availed gold loan from the Opposite Party bank depositing 80.1 gram of gold ornaments Rs.51,000/- was given to the Complainant on 04.12.2006. The Complainant could not release the gold ornaments closing the liability. During this period the agricultural gold loan were also given the benefit of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief scheme of the Central Government. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party to give him the benefit of the Debt Waiver Scheme of the Central Government and the gold ornaments pledged are to be given back to the Complainant. The Opposite Party said one or other reason and the benefit of the debt waiver scheme was not given to the Complainant. The complaint is in consequence of the denying of the debt waiver scheme. There may be an order directing the Opposite party to give the Complainant the benefit of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme of the Central Government and the gold ornaments pledged are to be given back to the Complainant along with cost and compensation.


 

3. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The Complainant deposited gold ornaments in the account No.AGL 6163 and availed loan of Rs.57,000/- on 04.12.2006. The gold ornaments pledged by the Complainant was not for agricultural purpose. The claim of the Complainant that he is entitled to get the benefit of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme is only an allegation for the strengthening of the complaint. There was no statement from the side of the Opposite party that the gold ornaments were pledged for the agricultural purposes. The Complainant gave a written complaint before the Opposite Party only after the completion of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme and had given the written request on 28.01.2009 years after the pledging of the gold ornaments. The Complainant was not ready to close the liability and to take back gold ornaments even after the repeated notices. The Opposite Party’s bank belongs to the clause 2 Primary Co-operative Society having no fund to give gold loan for the agricultural purpose during the relevant period. The Opposite Party issued gold loan for agricultural purpose only during the period when District Co-operative Bank and NABARD gives funds for that purpose. The loan issued to the Complainant belonged to non agricultural purposes and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainant is a chronic defaulter in closing the liability and releasing the gold ornaments in time. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.


 

4. Points in consideration are:

  1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in the issuance of the gold loan?

  2. Relief and cost.


 

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of Complainant and Opposite Party. The documents considered are Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4. The oral testimony of Complainant and Opposite Party are also considered.


 

6. The dispute in issue is whether the loan amount issued to the Complainant could have enlisted in the scheme of Debt Waiver and Debt Relief declared by the Central Government. The Complainant availed gold loan on deposit of the gold ornaments in December 2006. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant was given loan on deposit of the gold ornaments not under agricultural purpose. Ext.B1 is the true Copy of the application given by the Complainant to the Opposite Party that request the need of an additional period of 3 months to take back the gold ornaments on remitting the amount the application is dated 28.01.2009. The beneficiaries of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme were published in 2008 April as admitted by the Complainant. The Complainant has not done any protest against the denial of the Debt Waiver Scheme instead the application shows that the Complainant was to be given an additional time for closing the liability remitting the loan amount. There is no scrap of paper produced by the Complainant to substantiate the contention that he had given any application to the authority concerned on denial of the scheme. The Opposite Party bank imposed an interest at the rate of 9.5% Ext.B2 is the copy of the circular issued by the District Co-operative Society, Pulpally. The rate for agricultural gold loan is 8.50% with effect from 01.09.2005 onwards. The non agricultural gold loan during that period is having interest at the rate of 9% and which was enhanced to 10% with effect from 01.09.2006. If the Complainant was denied all the benefit of Debt Waiver Scheme he was authorised to give the application to concerned authority constituted under this scheme but nothing is brought in evidence to substantiate the contention of the Complainant. It is to be considered that the gold ornaments pledged by the Complainant did not belong to the category of agricultural purposes. It is pertinent to note that the scheme of the Central Government is extended only for the purpose of agricultural loan. In this circumstances the non inclusion the denial of the gold loan in the category of Debt Waiver scheme by the Opposite Party cannot be considered as a deficiency in service and the points are found accordingly.


 


 

In the result the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost and compensation.

     

     

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 28th June 2011.


 

Date of filing:09.11.2010.

 


 

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/ Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X


 

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. George. V.V. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Saji Joseph. Secretary, Service Co-operative Bank

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Receipt. dt:04.12.2006.

A2. Notice. dt:09.07.2010.

A3. Copy of Letter. dt:15.07.2010.


 

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Copy of Letter. dt:28.01.2009.

B2. Copy of Circular 12/2006. dt:28.08.2006.

B3. Copy of Circular 15/2006. dt:14.11.2006.

B4. Copy of Gold Loan Ledger.

 

 

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.