Kerala

Idukki

CC/83/2021

Peethaanbaran k - Complainant(s)

Versus

service co-operative bank - Opp.Party(s)

14 Nov 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 1.7.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  14^th day of  November, 2022

Present :

                    SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                               MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                            MEMBER

CC NO.83/2021

     Between

Complainant                                        :  Peethaambaran K.,

                                                                Thumarkkalayil House,

                                                                 Konnathady P.O.,

                                                                 Idukki – 685 566.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

        And

Opposite Party                                     :  The Secretary,

                                                                 Konnathady Service Co-operative Bank

                                                                                Ltd. No.K-260,

                                                                 Konnathady, Idukki – 685 563.

O R D E R

 

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

          1. This complaint is filed raising the following allegations against opposite party.  Complainant is an aged man.  Complainant is a member of opposite party society and his membership number is 119.  He availed a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the opposite party on 23.6.2015.  Though the loan was passed, complainant did not withdraw any amount till 31.7.2015.  In total Rs.35,000/- only was withdrawn from loan account by complainant.  Complainant applied for loan for running a cattle farm and knowing the complainant is going to run a farm, complainant’s daughters objected and hence complainant abandoned the project.  After availing the loan, complainant remitted the interest and periodically renewed the loan also.  As complainant is not much educated and aged, he is not aware of the interest calculation method of opposite party.  Complainant gave up the farm and the loan was not used by him except Rs.35,000/-.  On 30.3.2020, opposite party told complainant that an amount more than Rs.2,06,444/- is outstanding in his loan account and asked him to remit the loan.  Since he has taken less than Rs.50,000/-, the amount demanded by opposite party is not correct.  In order to ascertain the facts, complainant applied for the account details of the loan account.  But opposite party gave the account details from 19.1.2017 to 31.2.2021.  The account details prior to 19.1.2017 is not given.  The calculation in the loan account is false.  Complainant had withdrawn only less than Rs.50,000/- from the loan account and the complainant doubts, misappropriation of the money from the loan account, by opposite                                                                                                                (cont….2)

- 2  -

party or his predecessor-in-office.  Complainant is not liable to pay more than the amount, withdrawn by the complainant.  Opposite party by doing falsification in the account made the complainant liable to pay a huge amount and  he  is not liable to pay the amount.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 23.6.2015 and 30.2.2021 on that day opposite party demanded Rs.2,06,664/- and continuously thereafter in Konnathady kara in Idukki Taluk within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  So he prayed for the following reliefs :

a.  Declare that complainant is not liable to pay more than Rs.50,000/- and interest to opposite party.

b.  Opposite party may be asked to produce the statement of account of the loan.

c.  Opposite party may be asked to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.

d.  Such other reliefs that deemed just and equitable also may be granted.

 

          2.  Opposite party filed written version in the following manner.

1)  Complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts.  He admitted that complainant is having membership No.119, of opposite party bank.  Bank had sanctioned cash credit loan of Rs.2.5 lakhs on 23.6.2015 with loan No.OLCCPL-420.  After deducting a total amount of Rs.8600/- towards various charges like Gahan fee Rs.500/-, legal fee Rs.750/-, risk fund Rs.525/-, valuation fee Rs.750/-, share Rs.4500/- thrift deposit Rs.1000/-, forms and stationery Rs.575/-, an amount of Rs.2,41,400/- was deposited in SB Account No.4327 of complainant.  Normally, loans are disbursed by opening another SB Account in addition to loan account.

2)  From the said SB Account, complainant had withdrawn Rs.1 lakh on 23.6.2015 and Rs.10,000/- on 2.7.2015.  Out of unutilized balance available in said account as on 4.7.2015 including previous credit balance totaling to Rs.1,31,512/- an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- was transferred to his loan account on the above day. From account balance available in loan account Rs.1,20,000/-, he had withdrawn Rs.15,000/- on 31.7.2015.  Later, he had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- and Rs.16,000/- on 24.10.2015 and on 26.9.2016 respectively.  Thus total amount withdrawn from loan amount is Rs.1,61,000/-.

3)  Interest of Rs.8000/- each was remitted on 23.5.2016 and 5.7.2016 and also Rs.16,000/- on 26.9.2016.

4)  Above loan was renewed on 26.9.2016 for an amount of Rs.1,70,000/-.  Later, Rs.267/- and Rs.10,069/- was credited towards interest and principal respectively on 30.9.2016.   As  per  loan  register,  balance amount of loan as  on  30.9.2016  was Rs.1,60,128/-.  Interest was debited on every 30^th September and 31^st March.  He had paid Rs.30,000/- on 29.3.2018 and Rs.9500/- on 6.4.2018.  Interest Rs.47,682/- was debited from loan account.  On the above date, Rs.1310/- was remitted in the balance loan amount Rs.1,68,310/- and loan was renewed for Rs.1,67,000/- on the above date as per loan No.OLCCPL-721.

5)  After 24.4.2018, he had remitted Rs.30,800/- in loan account till date.   Interest upto

                                                                                                                        (cont….3)

-  3  -

31.3.2021 amounting to Rs.70,467/- was debited from loan account.  Balance due as on 31.3.2021 was Rs.2,06,664/-.

6)  After 24.4.2018, above loan was not renewed or arrears were not paid.  As on 29.2.2021, total amount to be paid including interest was Rs.2,15,592/-.  Opposite party demanded the balance due personally and through notice.  He had attended the adalat as per ‘Navakeraleeyam arrear settlement programme’.  He had never raised any objection at the time of payments or renewal of loan. He was supplied with loan passbook and SB passbook.

7)  Loan was not taken for cattle production but for house construction.  If he had any doubt in the calculation of interest if any, opposite party is ready to clarify the same to complainant.

Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs of opposite party.  

 

          3.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and 2 documents.  Evidence in this case includes the oral testimony of complainant and Exts.P1 and P2.  As per direction in IA 1/22 filed by complainant, opposite party was directed to produce documents like withdrawal slip dated 23.6.2015, 2.7.2015, 31.7.2015, 24.10.2015 and 26.9.2016 and also original of cheque.  He produced certified copy of the same under Banker’s Books Evidence Act.  Based on that, further chief examination of complainant was conducted.  Opposite party did not adduce oral evidence or conduct cross examination of complainant.  As opposite party was absent and no representation or application from his side is filed, counsel for complainant was heard.

 

          We have examined the contentions and perused pleadings and documents produced.  On a perusal of the same, following points arise for consideration. 

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?

2) Whether the complainant is liable to pay more than Rs.50,000/- and interest to opposite party ?

3)  Order to be passed ?

4.  Point No.1 :

 

          On a perusal of pleadings and prayers, it is seen that complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service from the side of opposite party.  His main contention is that he had withdrawn Rs.35,000/- only and is not liable to pay more than Rs.50,000/- and interest which is not proved by him.  He averred that loan of Rs.2.50 lakhs was availed on 23.6.2015 for running cattle farm but due to objection of his children, he abandoned the said plan.  But as per written version, opposite party’s contention is that after deducting certain amounts towards various expenses, balance Rs.2,41,400/- was credited in SB Account of complainant.  Complainant deposed in chief examination that he had not withdrawn Rs.1 lakh on 23.6.2015 as per cheque produced by opposite party.  He also denied the signature on the same.  He denied the issuance of cheque for Rs.10,000/-                                                                                                                 (cont….4)

• 4  -

on 2.7.2015.  He again denied the withdrawal of Rs.16,000/- and signature thereon. Opposite party is a Service Co-operative Bank represented by its Secretary.  Complainant has no case that secretary or staff members were  party to or involved in any fraud against him.  Cheque leaf is admittedly of his bank account maintained with opposite party.  Signature in copy of voucher slip dated 23.6.2015, 2.7.2015, 31.7.2015, 24.10.2015 and 26.09.2016 are very much similar to the signature of complainant appearing in complaint.  His left thumb impression affixing in voucher dated 23.6.2015, 31.7.2015, 24.10.2015 have not been denied by him.  Eventhough, he had denied signature, no action for fabrication of documents was taken by him against opposite party.  From this, it is clear that above denial is only to escape from liability.  Moreover, as per Ext.P1, it is seen that loan number OLCCPL 420 was taken on 23.6.2015.  Necessity of loan is shown as maintenance of house.  This shows that averment that loan was availed for running farm is not correct.  From the documents produced by opposite party, it is seen that complainant had renewed loan on 2 times and withdrawn amounts on various dates as per voucher slips stated by opposite party in written version.

 

          Regarding interest calculation, opposite party has stated that they are ready to clarify the same to the complainant.  As per loan No.OLCCPL-420, interest rate shown is 16% whereas in the last renewed loan No.721, it is 13.25% as seen from the calculation statement filed by opposite party.  On an entire analysis of the facts and evidence of this case reveals that complainant failed to prove the contentions.  Original passbook of SB Account and loan account were not produced by him.  As the complainant has not alleged deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, we are of the considered view that complaint is not sustainable as such in this Commission.  Point No.1 is answered as above.

 

5.  Point No.2 :

 

          From the records available, we find no irregularity in the certified copy of accounts produced by opposite party.  As the complainant is found to have withdrawn amounts as per voucher slips on various dates, his averment that he had withdrawn total amount of Rs.35,000/- only is against facts.  Another aspect is that loan was renewed 2 times.  Without his knowledge and signature, it cannot be done.  On this score also, his allegation is unsustainable.  So we are of the view that, complainant is not entitled to the relief first prayed for in the complaint.  He is liable to pay amount legally due to the opposite party. 

 

          As complainant doubts about calculation in interest and opposite party is willing to clarify the same, he can contact still the bank for the same and if he approaches the bank, necessary clarification to be given to him by opposite party.

 

So point No.2 is answered accordingly.                                               (cont….5)

• 5  -

 

6.  Point No.3 :

 

          Considering the facts of the case, we are not inclined to allow costs.

 

          In the result, complaint is dismissed without costs and with the above observation.   Extra copies filed by parties shall be taken back by them without delay. 

 

                   Pronounced by this Commission on this the  14^th  day of November, 2022

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

       SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

                                                                                          Sd/-

   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                              Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1        -   Peethambaran.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    -  Copy of passbook.

Ext.P2    -  Copy of statement of account. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

                                                                                                         Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                                                                                                    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR