Sri. K. GOPALAN: PRESIDENT <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs 28,885 and sum ofRs 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical sufferings.<br /> The allegations in the complaint are as follows. The complainant applied for loan . He approached the opposite party several times and at last he was sanctioned a long term loan in 7 instalments. But the complainant received only one instalment. The loan was sanctioned as per Rubber Plantation Scheme. The first instalment was allotted at a time when there was no need of money for rubber plantation. He had filed a complaint with respect to this before the Conumer Forum and obtained an order in favour of him on 24.1.2005. Thereafter no instalment was allotted to complainant. Since the loan was not sanctioned to him in time as he requested and so also the rubber cultivation had not been profitable, the complainant could not repay the loan amount and its interest. Since he was in default bank sent notices to complainant. Complainant received three notices in correct address. He sent a letter to Sale Officer requesting him to inform the complainant in the present address if any further steps had intended to be taken. But Sales Officer sent him notice in wrong address. But postman who was well known to complainant redirected the notice to complainant, or otherwise, hi property would have been taken away by recovery proceedings. After receiving the notice the complainant applied before Agricultural Debt Relief Commission. NO reply received from the commission. So the complainant remitted the entire amount on 3.7.2003 The receipt issued by the opposite party was dated 30.6.07 which the complainant noticed only when he reached home. Moreover bank Secretary told him that he was entitled for Rs 506 if the amount was remitted on 30.6.07. But no such amount was allowed to the complainant. On 30.6.07 cashier was present on duty in the bank whereas the day 30.7.07 when the complainant remitted the amount in the bank cashier in charge was on duty. The receipt was signed by the person in charge of the cashier. Because of these sort of unfair trade practice complainant suffered much mental pain and sufferings. Hence this complaint for an order to refund Rs 28,885 which he has paid and Rs 20,000/- as compensation with cost of this proceedings.<br /> Persuant to the notice opposite party no.1 filed version in the form of counter statement. The contentions of the opposite party in brief are as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. Complainant is the member of the bank. He took loan mortgaging his property in R.S.No.42 of Thillenkeri Amsom , Desom by depositing the title deed for an extent of 1 acre 9 cents. An amount of Rs 24,960/- was sanctioned from Peravoor Branch of the opposite party bank. The said amount sanctioned as per the Rubber Plantation Scheme prevailed in the year 1994. The complainant availed the first instalment of Rs 10,920/- alone on 9.4.1994. By utilizing the amount the complainant had not cultivated rubber as stipulated. Hence subsequent instalment was not disbursed to the complainant. The repayment of the loan start s after 7 years , ie from 1.4.2001 onwards. Upto 29.6.2007 that is after 7 years from the date 1.4.2001, the complainant had not paid the instalment towards his liability. Opposite party sent several notices demanding repayment of due amount of the loan. The officials of opposite party bank visited the house of the complainant and requested to repay the amount. The allegation that the opposite party bank had not informed about repayment etc is not at all correct. Complainant visited to the opposite party bank on 3 or 4 occasions. Finally the opposite party bank decided to put the property of the complainant in public auction on 3.7.2007. After receiving the notice of public auction, the complainant paid the entire amount. The loan had sanctioned in the month of April 1994. Normally rubber plantation starts in the moth of June, when Monsoon begins. Preparation for plantation has been done in April and May. Hence the allegation that the loan had sanctioned when the complainant had no need for the money is not correct. The allegation of the complainant is not specific and material and without any basis.<br /> O the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party bank?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?.<br /> The evidence consists of oral testimony of complainant and Exts. A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. The opposite parties have no oral evidence.<br /> ISSUES 1 & 2: Admittedly the complainant availed loan from opposite party bank by mortgaging his property. The loan has sanctioned in the month of April 1994. Complainant availed one instalment Rs 10,920/- in the month of April 1994. The complainant’s case is that “<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant has not adduced evidence to prove that the money obtained at a time when the complainant was not in need of money. At the same time the opposite party has specifically contended thus”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant did not take care to attend this contention . This contention has not been denied by the complainant nor he has even stated the month or period when the money is required for the plantation. Thus this silence amounts to admission that in the usual course preparation for plantation has been done in the month April-May and plantation starts in the month of June. So that the allegation that the first instalment of the loan received at a time when complainant was not in need of money has no basis and untrue. Ext. A3 is produced to show that the bank has not sent the notice in correct address. But the complainant has admitted that he has received the notice. Ext. A2 is the document to show that the entire amount was remitted by the complainant. If the notice was not received by the complainant his property would have been auctioned. But that was not happened. So that such allegation carries no weight to substantiate negligence on the part of opposite party.<br /> The complainant received the instalment in the year 1994 but it has not been repaid even after 7 years. It was also not denied that opposite party has sent several notices to complainant. It can be assumed that complainant has got notice but failed to remit the amount.<br /> On the analysis of evidence available on record does not permit to assume that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Complainant remitted the amount which he is legally bound to remit. Complainant is not able to prove deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence we are of opinion that the complainant deserves no relief and thus not entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint. The issues 1 & 2 are found against complainant.<br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.Inspection report dt. 17.1.2001 of the Asst. Development Officer.<br /> A2. Cash receipt dt. 30.6.2007 issued by the opposite party.<br /> A3. Notice sent by the Special Sale Officer, Thalasery Primary Co.op:Rural Development Bank, Thalassery.<br /> A4. Notice dt. 30.6.2005 sent by the opposite party<br /> A5.Statement issued by the 2nd opposite party.<br /> A6. Loan ledger abstract in respect of the complainant.<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party –Nil<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party –Nil<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br />