BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No. 09/2004 Filed on 09..01..2004 <br /> Dated: 16..06..2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> B. Gopinathan Nair, T.C.50/887, Nandavanathil Veedu, Kalady, Karamana – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. R. Padmanabha Pillai)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1. Indian Overseas Bank, Power House Road Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. Represented by its Senior Manager.<br /> 2. Indian Overseas Bank, Head Office, P.B.No.3765762, Annasalai, Madras – 600 002. Represented by its Managing Director.<br /> (1 & 2 by Adv. Sri. B. Madhukumar)<br /> Addl. Opp. Parties:<br /> 3. District Collector, Vanchiyoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 4. Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery) Taluk Office, Kottaikkakom, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (3 & 4 by Adv. Sri. Paraniyam Devakumar)<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 13..05..2008, the Forum on 16..06..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT : <br /> The case of the complainant is that complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 36,000/- from the 1st opposite party Indian Overseas Bank in 1992 and the entire sum of principal and interest due thereon had been paid before 20..02..2002 and the said loan account with the bank had already been closed on that day itself. Thus the complainant was nothing to the bank thereafter. Thereafter, the Revenue Recovery staff of the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram approached the complainant and informed him that they are advised to take recovery steps under the Kerala Recovery Act for an alleged sum due from the complainant to the 1st opposite party bank on the above said loan raised from the bank. The complainant had showed the connected records and receipts for repayment and closure of the loan to the Revenue Recovery Authorities. They seemed to have been satisfied by verification of the said records. Thereafter, complainant informed of this incident to the opposite party and requested him to withdraw the advice for Revenue Recovery Proceedings. The complainant believed that the matter ended there. Thereafter, on 30..12..2003 Revenue Recovery staff came to the complainant's shop in their departmental jeep and threatened the complainant with coercive steps for recovery of a sum of nearly Rs.65,000/- allegedly being the amount due by the complainant to the 1st opposite party bank towards the above said loan. The complainant explained his position to Revenue Recovery staff they were not satisfied and continued their threatening of taking severe action. As things went to such an extent a large crowd assembled in front of the complainant's shop which included many of his customers also. This action has caused ill feeling against the complainant in the minds of many of his customers and others that the complainant had cheated the bank. This incident had caused severe mental agony to the complainant. Immediately the complainant went to the 1st opposite party bank by hiring a taxi, met the Manager and informed him of the unpleasant situation. The Manager of the 1st opposite party bank had addressed the District Collector intimating that the loan account had already been closed on 20..02..2002 itself. Due to the said incident some of the creditors of the complainant began to lose their confidence on the complainant which had resulted in shortfall of his business which in turn had caused fall in his regular income. Besides this the complainant had suffered heavy mental agony due to fall in his sales turn over which is solely due to the action of the 1st opposite party. Hence this complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony, loss in business transaction and other damages sustained by the complainant and cost of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the complainant was running a provision shop near Karamana. It is true that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 36,000/- from the 1st opposite party. But it was on 12..09..1994 and not in 1992. The loan was repayable in 36 instalments of Rs. 1,231/- each from October 1994. From the very inception the repayment was irregular and the said loan was classified as Non performing asset in November 2001. Inspite of the letters, notices, reminders and personal contacts, the complainant did not heed either to regularise or to settle the account and hence the opposite party initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings through the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram for realisation of the dues towards the loan account of the complainant. It was only after that the complainant came forward to settle the dues with an One Time Settlement proposal of Rs. 14,000/- towards full settlement of the liability. The said proposal was accepted by the opposite parties and accordingly the complainant remitted Rs.14,000/- on 20..02..2002. The fact of closure of the loan account was intimated to the Revenue Authorities on 20..02..2002 along with a Banker's cheque for Rs.700/- being the R.R. Commission. As per the request of the complainant, the 1st opposite party issued a letter to the District Collector stating the closure of the loan account and to withdraw the R.R Proceeding though the same was already intimated to the R.R Authorities vide letter dated 20..02..2002. The opposite parties had acted in good faith and with due diligence and care and there is no deficiency in service or negligence, lapses or dereliction of duties on the part of the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is not sustainable. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 3. After filing the complaint additional opposite parties 3 & 4 were impleaded. Addl. opposite parties 3 & 4 entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consume Protection Act. The Revenue Recovery authorities approached the complainant as part of Revenue Recovery proceedings. No records or receipts regarding payment was shown by the complainant to the Revenue Recovery authorities. No threatening or or coercive steps were taken as alleged in the complaint. The information regarding the settlement had not been conveyed to the Revenue Recovery authorities and the collection charge of the amount has not been charged in this office. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed for in the complaint. Hence addl. opposite parties 3 & 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 4.The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and Exts. P1 & P2 were marked. On behalf of opposite parties 1 & 2, the Chief Manager of Indian Overseas Bank has filed affidavit.<br /> 5. Points (i) & (ii) : Admittedly, complainant availed a loan of Rs. 36,000/- from the 1st opposite party. According to 1st opposite party, the said loan was taken on 12..09..1994 and not in 1992 as averred in the complaint. Submission by the complainant is that the said loan had been paid before 20..02..2002 and the said loan account with the 1st opposite party had already been closed on that day itself. 1st opposite party in its affidavit deposed that, the said loan was repayable in 36 instalments of Rs.1,231/- each from October 1994, the repayment was irregular and the loan was classified as non-performing asset in November 2001. Inspite of letters, notices, reminders and personal contacts the complainant did not heed either to regularise or to settle the account and hence the opposite parties initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings through the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram for realisation of the dues towards the loan account of the complainant. It was only after the initiation of Revenue Recovery proceedings, the complainant cameforward to settle the dues with one time settlement proposal of Rs. 14,000/- towards full settlement of liability. The said proposal was accepted by the opposite parties and accordingly, the complainant remitted Rs.14,000/- on 20..02..2002. Further submission by 1st opposite party is that, the fact of closure of the loan account was intimated to the Revenue Recovery Authorities on 20..02..2002. Ext.P1 is the copy of the letter dated 30..12..2003 sent by the 1st opposite party informing the District Collector (RR), Thiruvananthapuram about the closure of the loan account. It is seen that 1st opposite party alongwith version filed a photocopy of letter dated 20..02..2002 addressed to the Village Office, Manacaud Village informing him about the closure of complainant's account under one time settlement for Rs. 14,000/- plus R.R Commission of Rs. 700/-. But 'from address' is not seen in top of the said letter. When we see the said record (letter) it is amazing that 1st opposite party bank wrote a letter in plain sheet of paper with no heading. Anyway the said record is not seen marked by the opposite parties. So we are in no position to accept this document as genuine. Main thrust of argument advanced by the complainant, is that even after closing the above said loan account by the complainant, Revenue Recovery staff approached the complainant on 30..12..2003 at about 1.00 P.M and threatened the complainant with coercive steps for recovery of a sum of Rs. 65,000/- allegedly being the amount due to the complainant to the 1st opposite party towards the said loan. Even after showing the records of the closure of said loan the R.R staff were not satisfied and continued their threatening of taking severe action. Further submission was that the things went to such an extent a large crowd assembled in front of complainant's shop which included many of his customers. District Collector and the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery) were impleaded as additional 3rd & 4th opposite parties in the complaint. Addl.opposite parties 3 & 4 filed version in which it is admitted that R.R authorities approached the complainant as a part of R.R proceedings. No records or receipts regarding the payment was shown by the complainant to R.R authorities. No threatening or coercive steps were taken by opposite parties 3 & 4 as alleged in the complainant. In the light of version of opposite parties 3 & 4, the onus of proving threatening and coercive steps of opposite parties 3 & 4 towards the complainant would lay on the complainant. It is pertinent to note that though complainant had filed witness schedule before this Forum, no attempt was seen taken by the complainant to summon and examine the witnesses to prove the veracity of the statement that R.R authorities came to the complainant's shop at about 1.00 P.M on 30..12..2003 in their departmental jeep and threatened the complainant with coercive steps for recovery of a sum of nearly Rs. 65,000/-. Complainant has failed to establish the complaint against opposite parties. Deficiency in service is not proved. In the aforementioned circumstance we see no merit in this complaint which deserves to be dismissed. <br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 16th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.<br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No.09/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I.Complainants' witness: NIL<br /> <br /> II.Complainants documents:<br /> P1 True copy of letter dated 30..12..2003 by Indian Overseas Bank to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> P2 : Trip sheet for contract carriages dated 30..12..2003 for Rs. 150/- paid by the complainant <br /> III.Opposite parties' witness: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> IV.Opposite parties' documents: N I L<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br />