DOF.03.06.2006

DOO.27.02.2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:                Member

Dated this, the   day of February 2012

CC.No.113/2006

1.Kootarapallil Sebastian,

Kootarapallil House,

Karikottakari,

P.O.Koomanthode.                                                  Complainant   

(Rep. by Adv.John Joseph)

1. Secretary,

    Tellicherry Primary co. operative

    Agricultural Development Bank  Ltd.,

    Thiruvnagad,Thalassery.

 2. Manager,

     Tellicherry Primary co. operative

     Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.,

     Thiruvnagad,Thalassery                                          Opposite parties

     (Rep. by Adv.C.K.Ramachandran)

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint fled under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to furnish a detailed account statement showing the amount legally due from the complaint and for a d further direction to close the loan account after receipt of the amount legally due from the complainant by availing the benefit of one time settlement with `10,000 as compensation and cost.

          The case of the complainant in brief is that he had availed 4 long term loans from opposite parties for agricultural development and also for construction of residential   house. The details regarding the complainant’s loan is as follows: The complaint had availed loan No.RHL 574 for construction of his house and the firs installment was disbursed on 10.12.97. Subsequent amount was disbursed on 31.1.98 and13.2.98 and the terms of the loan are for 15 years and the complainant was expected to repay the loan on quarterly rest from 31.3.98. The complainant has repaid `2, 17,208 towards the loan up to 13.5.05. The loanNo.PHCO.1430 is taken for development of coconut cultivation. `24,000 was disbursed to the complainant as per  two installments  on  28.2.2000 and 22.2.2001. The repayment period is for 12 years and has repaid 12,113 on 6.3.04 in the said loan. The rate of interest was 15.5%.The loan cashew – 413 were availed for development of cashew cultivation. Altogether a sum of `56,000 was availed by the complaint by two instalments on 28.2.2000 and 22.2.2001 and the period of loan is 12 years and the rate of interest is 15.2%. The loan Rubber 299 was availed for cultivation under the auspices of Rubber Board `19,000 was availed on 28.2.2000 and 30.9.2000. The rte of interest of this loan is subsidized by Rubber board.  The rate of interest was 15.5% and terms of repayment are 14 years. As per the direction of opposite party, the complainant had signed in same papers on the representation that over due interest in respect of the loans would be adjusted in the form of another loans. Accordingly loan No.DAL-405 is sanctioned in the name of the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party is not ready to furnish the details regarding the loan account even after several request of complainant. The opposite parties are bound to impose interest, penal interest as per the norms of RBI NABARD etc. from time to time. But they are imposing interest, penal interest, miscellaneous charges etc. in respect of all loans. The opposite arties are capitalizing penal interest as well as interest on interest. The benefits of subsidies provided by World Bank, NABARD, and Rubber Board etc. re not provided to the complainant. The opposite parties have not sanctioned the benefit of moratorium on interest promulgated by government of Kerala during the year 2003 for agricultural loan. Since the complaint realized that the opposite parties re not accounting properly the repayment made by the complainant he made a written request through lawyer notice dt. 19.12.05 requesting to give a true and correct account of the loans, but even though they received the letter they have not complied. But the complainant received a notice dt.18.2.06 from sale officer demanding to pay a sum of `3, 89,232. Since the mount is exorbitant the complainant has made several request to furnish detailed account with a view to  settle by availing the benefit under OTS. But it was not headed by the opposite parties. Again the complainant issued a lawyer notice and the 2^nd opposite party issued a statement with effect from 1.4.04 only. The complaint made a written complaint to Asst. Registrar on 25.1.06. But he had issued a reply without furnishing account statements. The interest, penal interest, miscellaneous charges being levied by the opposite parties is against all norms. The opposite parties have not properly accounted the amounts paid by the complainant. The opposite parties are imposing the earlier rates of interest as against the direction of RBI, co-operative department etc. to levy reduced interest on agricultural loans. The complainant is entitled to get the benefits of agricultural debt relief scheme sanctioned by the government of Kerala from time to time. Due to inaction on the part of opposite parties the complainant could not close the above said housing loan during 2005 and the complaint has suffered financial loss as the opposite parties demanded settlement of other loans as pre-condition to settle the housing loan account. Opposite parties are bound to change interest rates from time as per the direction of various statutory authorities opposite parties are imposing highly exorbitant rates even now and taking coercive steps against the complainant. Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notices issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version admitting that the complaint had availed 5 loans from the bank and filed detailed statement as on 31.8.06.According to opposite parties the penal interest of 20% was levied and collected for over dues as per the banking rules up to 31.3.04 from all borrowers. From1.4.04 the opposite party is not collecting penal interest from its borrowers, since the government of Kerala has directed to give up penal interest and is collecting simple interest on principal from borrowers. The bank has credited `3047 in the loan account of PH10 1430 of the complaint on 30.6.05 which was the moratorium benefit offered by the government of Kerala to Agriculturists. The opposite parties denies the versions that opposite parties are  imposing interest, penal interest, miscellaneous charges etc and are capitalizing penal interest and interest. It is also not correct to say that opposite parties’ levied substantial amounts under different heads and also not correct to say that the interest subsidies provided by the World Bank, NABARD, Rubber board etc. are not provided to the complainant. It is also incorrect to say that opposite parties have not sanctioned the moratorium on interest promulgated by govt. of Kerala during the year 2003 for Agricultural loan etc.

          The contract rate of interest of loan No.RHL.574 was 17.5 for two installments and for last installments it was 16.75%. However the rte f interest was reduced to 12% with effect from 1.4.04. The contract rate of interest of the loan NO.PHLO 1430 was 15.5%. The rate of interest was reduced to 12%. The contract rate of interest of the loan cashew 413 was 15 .5% and was reduced to 12% from 1.4.04. The contract rate of interest for loan Rubber 299 was 15.5% and was reduced 12% with effect from 1.4.04. The contract rate of interest to the loan as DA Loan is 9%.Apart from the reduction of rate of interest six years of grace period for the payment of principal loan amount in loan No.PHCO 1430, Cashew 413 and in Rubber 299. Even though the opposite party ;ban k has not liable to reduce the contract rate of interest of loans, the opposite party ;bank has  framed a policy to reduce the contract rate of interest and fixed the rte of 12% for existing loans as above stated. The opposite party bank as correctly and timely accounted the amount paid by the complainant in his loan amount. The opposite parties have furnished the detailed accounts and statement with reference to the balance to clear all dues to the bank and about the payment which already made by the complainant. The opposite parties have correctly and properly maintaining the accounts from 1.4.04 opposite party bank is collecting only simple interest.

          The one time settlement introduced by government of Kerala in existence from 27.2.06. This scheme provides some benefit to the borrowers for which the loan is in overdue by December 2005. The complainant is not entitled to get the full OTS benefit since his loan repayment period is not completed during 2005. The complaint has filed this complaint on experimental basis. The sale officer initiated some steps to compel the complainant to re-pay the overdue. The allegation with respect to deficiency of service is not correct and the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case as per the section 69 and 10D of Kerala co-operative societies Act and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.  Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to try the case?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of

    opposite parties?

3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as

     prayed in  the complaint?

          4.  Relief and cost.

                    The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A22.

Issue No.1

          The opposite parties in the above case we contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the above case as per section 69 and 100 of Kerala co-operative societies Act. But in Secretary, Thirumugham co-operative Agricultural society Vs. M.Lalitha, the Hon’ble Supreme court held that as   remedy under C.P Act, 1986 was  in addition to and not in derogation of other remedies available and hence the complaint filed against the  co-operative bank by its member is maintainable before the Forum. So we are of the opinion that the complaint is maintainable before the Forum and issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

Issue Nos. 2 to 4

          The further case of the complainant is that the opposite parties are imposing interest, penal interest and miscellaneous charge etc. against all norms.      The benefits of subsidies of interest provided by world bank, NABARD, Rubber board and  by Govt. are not provided to the complainant  and above all the opposite parties re not properly accounting the amount paid by the complainant etc. In order to prove his case the complainant was examined as PW1 and produced documents such as true copy of sale notice, true copy of a lawyer notice. dt 19.12.05 postal receipt, postal acknowledgement lawyer notice dt.4.5.06, copy of reply from 2^nd opposite party with copy of account statement, proclamation of sale 18 loan receipts, answer to interrogations, certified copy of the beneficiary list along with amount as per central government’s agricultural debt relief scheme, reply by AR, covering letter issued to complainant by Kerala state co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank ltd. dt. 28.6.07 with copies of circulars with respect to interest rate from 2001 to 2007, circulars having Nos. 25/04, 20/07, 41/02, 20/06, 31/05 information furnished by National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development under RTI Act, information furnished by Kerala state co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank Ltd., information given by Rubber board, letter issued by J.R, Circular No.1/05 etc.

          Admittedly the complainant had availed five loans from the opposite party. According to the opposite arty they had issued detailed calculation statement on 13.5.06 along with reply notice and also on 31.8.06 along with version. It is admitted by the complaint that opposite parties has issued these two calculation statements. But according to complainant it is not proper. So in order to ascertain wither there is any deficiency of service on the art of opposite parties it has to be ascertain what are the benefits the complaint is entitled to get as per the different subsidiaries of interest, moratorium waiver of penal inertest and as per the beneficial scheme introduced by the NABARD, Rubber board and other organizations of government.

          The complainant has availed loan No.RH4.574 for an amount of `2, 00,000 by three installments i.e. `67000 on 10.12.97, `66000 on 31.3.98, `67000 on 13.2.98 for construction of his house. The complaint has to repay with effect from 1.8.98 as per Ext.A6(b)But  no where stated about the rate of interest and not produced the copy of  jenmam. But opposite party contended that the rate of interest of the housing loan is 17.5% for the first two installments and 16.75% for the last installment and from 1.4.04 onwards rate of interest was reduced to 12%. Even though the complaint contended that the rate of interest for housing loan unto 2 lakh was 10.5%, he has not produced any document to prove this. It is true that he has produced Ext.A12 series of circulars nothing is in it to prove that the rate of interest was reduced to 10.5% for the loans availed for housing construction during 97-98. So the complainant is liable to pay 17.5% interest for 1^st and 2^nd installment and 16.75% for 3^rd installment up to 1.4.04. As per Ext.A16, i.e. circular No.20/06, it is seen that the government has issued a G.O(Rt)No.79/02 dt. 20.3.02 which restrict the co-operative banks from levying penal interest. If it is already received it has either to be returned or to be accounted towards the further liability of the complainant.

          As per Ext.A8 (1) the complainant has paid  `22420 and out of which `455 and `41 were charged as penal interest and miscellaneous charges respectively including interest up to 1.8.98. As stated earlier complaint is not liable to pay penal interest and miscellaneous charges and hence the above amount has to be accounted towards the principal amount.

          Admittedly the complainant has not repaid the loan amount. The  OTs benefit is available to the person who had repaid the loan amount within the stipulated period. The circular No.41/02 shows that the complaint is entitled to get moratorium benefits for the Agricultural loan for 6 months from 29.12.01. As per the circular No.25/04, the complaint is further entitled to get moratorium benefits for one year for the Agricultural loan from 2.1.04. More over the complainant is entitled to get loan waiver benefit of `2,3170, `37,358, `36,916 in respect of loan Nos. WBR.299, DAC 040-0405 and Cashew 413 and 12,230 in loan No.PHCO.1430. But on going through the account statement  produced by the opposite parties the above stated  moratorium benefit, loan  waiver benefit waiver of penal interest and waiver of etc. are not included in the account statement. So it is seen that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. So they re liable to issue a account statement by including all the above stated benefit in all the loans availed by the complainant along with a compensation of `5000 along with `2000 as cost of the proceedings to the complainant and order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to

1)     furnish a detailed correct account statement with respect to the all loans availed by the complaint by including the waiver of penal interest, avoiding miscellaneous charge moratorium benefit for Agricultural loan for 6 months from 29.12.01 and for one year from 23.1.0 and loan waiver benefit of `23.170, `37,358, `36,916 in respect of loan numbers WBR 294, DAL 040-0405 and Cashew 413 and `12,230 in loan No.PHCO.1430.

2)     and to allow the complainant to close all the loan accounts in the name of the complaint after receiving due amount.

3)     and to pay `5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and `2000 (Rupees Two thousand only)  as cost of the proceedings and the opposite parties have  to comply  the order within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                   Dated this, the   29^th  day of  February     2012

President                Member      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.   Copy of the sale notice dt. 289.11.05

A2.   Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A3 & 4. Postal receipt and AD

A5.  Copy of the lawyer notice dt.4.5.06

A6. Copy of the reply from 2^nd OP with statement of account  

A7. Copy of proclamation by the sale officer of OP bank  

A8. Loan receipts

A9.  Answer to the interrogatories b OP before the Forum.

A10. Certified copy of he beneficiary list as per Central govt.’s Agrl.

        Debt relief  scheme

A11. Reply issued by Asst. Registrar dt.21.4.06.

A12. Reply of RTI issued by KSCo.op. Agrl.& Rural Development

        Bank, dt. 29.6.07.

A13 to A17. Copy of the circular Nos.25/04, 20/07,  41/02, 20/06,

            31/05, issued by Co.op. Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram.

A18 & 19.   Letters dt.11.12.09 and 2.10.09 issued by National Bank for Agrl.&Rural Development and KSCAgrl.&Dev.Bank( RTI)

A20.Copy of the  letter dt.3.9.08 issued by Rubber Production Dept.

A21.Copy of the letter dt.17.2.05 issued by Jt. Registrar, Co.op. Dept.,

     Kannur.

A22.Copy of the circular No.1/2005 dt.7.2.05 issued by JR, Kannur.

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.K.J.Sebastian

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                         Senior Superintendent

Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.