SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint seeking refund of excess amount collected from the opp.party and to include and settle the loan availed by the 1st complainant under the OTS, compensation, costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The first complainant is a member of the first opp.party bank with membership No.5440. He has availed an agricultural loan of Rs.15,000/- from the first opp.party. The loan amount was completely repaid and he has paid a sum of Rs.18,410/- in excess which he is entitled to get backwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The 2nd complainant applied to the bank for settlement of the loan under the OTS but no reply was given to him on 1.11.07 the 3rd opp.party came to the house of the complainant and demanded Rs. 16,000/- towards the balance of amount outstanding against the loan. It was further informed that if the arrears are not paid the 2nd complainant’s property and the building situated therein will be sold in public auction. Though the complainant applied to the opp.party bvank for the statement of accounts for settling the loan the same was not given which amounts deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the complaint. The opp.party 1 and 2 filed a joint version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts as the dispute alleged is not in any way connected with the 2ndcomplainant. The first complainant has availed the loan. There is no case that the first complainant is a minor or a person of unsound mind. The first complainant has also not executed any power of attorney in the name of the 2nd complainant and therefore the 2nd complainant is not legally competent to prefer this complaint. Therefore this complaint is filed by a stranger to the account of the 1st complainant. which is not maintainable under section 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The complainants are estopped from preferring a complaint of this nature before this Forum . On that grounds also this complaint is not maintainable. The first complainant has applied for loan of Rs.16,000/- which was sanctioned by the committee and the loan was availed on 3.2.1995. The 1st complainant had remitted back an amount of Rs.18,410/- towards the loan amount on 15.1.2001. The averments in para 2 of the complaint that the 1st complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 6.7.2007 is false and the Special Sales Officer who is authorized to proceed for recovery of the loan outstanding had issued a notice to the first complainant on 16.6.2001 demanding to pay arrears of loan amount of Rs..12,694/- which was received by the 2nd complainant who thereafter approached the Special Sale Officer on 6.7.2001 with a letter stating that he is paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- on that day requesting for 2 months more time to remit the balance amount due. The Special Sales Officer has received an amount of Rs.5,000/- which has been remitted to the first complainant’s loan account. The averment in para 3 of the complaint is completely false. Neither the first complainant nor the 2nd complainant has ever sent any letter to the bank at any time, requesting to settle the account under the One Time Settlement Scheme. After remitting Rs. 5000/- on 6.7.2001 a sum of Rs.7694/- remains as balance. The allegation that the demand notice is for Rs.16,000/- is false. The loan availed by the first complainant will not come within the purview of the provisions of One Time Settlement. As per the circular No.CB[1] 34512/2006 dated 30.11.2006 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The above settlement is not applicable in respect of loans having duration of repayment period beyond 5 years and so One Time Settlement scheme is not applicable in this case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party and they are also not liable to pay any amount or interest or compensation to the complainants. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 2. Relief and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P4 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D3 are marked. POINTS: Though the complainant admits availing of loan from the opp.party bank there is dispute regarding the amount of loan. When the complainants says that the loan amount is Rs.15,000/-the opp.party’s case is that the loan amount is Rs.16,000/- . However, it has come in evidence that Rs.1000/- is retained towards share value etc. According to the complainants they have repaid the entire loan as per Ext.P1 and P2 amounting to Rs 33410/- and a sum of Rs.9410/- is paid in excess. The opp.parties even after that are initiating steps to sell their property alleging that a sum of Rs.16,000/- is also due from them. The opp.party admits receipt of Rs. 23410/-. The payment as per Ext.P1 is admitted but the payment as per Ext.P2 is disputed. According to the opp.party when recovery steps were initiated 2nd complainant paid Rs.5000/- and filed application seeking time for payment as per Ext. D2 and time for payment of balance amount was extended but the complainant forged the amount of Rs.5000/- in Ext.D2 as 15000/- Ext. D1 demand notice dt. 16.6.2001 and Ext. D3 ledger shows that the balance amount due from 1st complainant was Rs.12,694/- Ext. D1 notice was accepted by 2nd complainant is evident from his signature on the reverse side of Ext. D1. As argued by the opp.parties when a sum of Rs.12694/- only is demanded nobody will pay Rs.15000/- and that itself would lead to an inference that the amount paid was Rs.5000/-. Though the complainant would contend that Ext. D2 is a forged documents even a layman can say that the handwriting and signature in Ext. D2 is that of the 2nd complainant in which he has admitted that the original loan amount is Rs.16000/- and that he has received D1 demand notice and making payment of Rs.5000/- Both Exts D2and P2 are dt. 6.7.01 when the 2nd complainant himself says in Ext. D2 that he is making payment of Rs.5000/- it cannot be believe that the sale officer opp.party 3 would issue a receipt for Rs.15000/-. A close perusal of Ext.P2 would show that the figure 1 on the left side of 5000/- is written using another pen. The amounts in words is also written in another handwriting using another pen. The other entries in Ext.P2 are in another handwriting. No attempt is made by complainant to summon the person who issued Ext.P2 to establish that the amount within in words is also in his handwriting and that he has actually received Rs.1500/- In these state of affairs we are of the view that the amount in Ext.P7 has been tamped with. Complainants contend that Ext. D2 is a forged document. Even a layman can say on a personal of D2, P3 and P4 that D2 is also written by 2nd complainant. In these circumstances the case advanced by complainant cannot be accepted. According to the 2nd complainant he has applied to the bank for settlement of his claim under one time settlement. But no material was produced to show that Ext.P3 and 4 have actually been send or presented to the opp.parties. There is no acknowledgment card for having received the same by the opp.parties or any entry regarding receipt of the same. So no reliance can be given to P3 and 4 One Time Settlement are benefits given by Government to defaulters during certain period and for availing the same the defaulter has to apply DW.1 said that no application for OTS has been received from the complainant. DW.1 in cross examination at page 6 admitted that they are ready to settle the complainants claim under OTS if the actual complainant applies. We record it and the complainant can approach the opp.party for the same and on receipt of any such application DW.1 shall settle the claim under OTS prevalent at that time.. On going through Ext.P2 and D2 we are of the view that the case of the complainant that the 1st complainant paid Rs.15000/- on 6.7.2001 is not true or even probable. So the contention that the complainant had paid amount in excess of the actual dues which he is entitled to get back is unsustainable. The learned counsel for opp.party would argue that the complainant filed by the 2nd complaint for and on behalf of the 1st complainant in the absence of any authorization is not maintainable. A power of attorney has subsequently been filed The contention that the complaint is not maintainable under section 100 of the Co-operative Societies Act is also unsustainable in the light of the decision of Apex court reported in AIR 2004 SC 448 . In the light of Ext. D2 wherein the 2nd complainant has admitted the correctness of the loan amount and the balance amount as per Ext.D1 and payment of Rs.5000/- undertaking payment of the balance amount. In these circumstances we are of the view that no deficiency in service can be attributed on the opp.parties. However, in the light of the admission of DW.1 in cross examination that the opp.party is ready to settle the case under OTS if the original party applies the complaint would be entitled to approach DW.1 for settlement. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is dismissed subject to the right of the complainant to approach DW.1 within a period of one month. No costs. Dated this the 30th day of April, 2010. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Madhavan Pillai List of documents for the complainant P1. – Receipt dt. 15.1.2001. P2. – Receipt dt. 6.7.01 P3. – Receipt 1.11.07 P4. – Receipt dt. 1.12.2007. List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Thomas List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Notice dt. 16.6.01. D2. – Letter sent by complainant to the Sale Officer D3. – Copy of ledger | 
