IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2022
Present: - Smt.S.Sandhya Rani Bsc, LLB ,Member(President In Charge)
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.142/2020
S.Sudhakaran,
Sankar Nivas,
Elikkattoor P.O.,
Piravanthoor 689696. : Complainant
V/S
Sri.Vineeth,
Branch Manager, Union Bank,
T.B.Junction, Punalur P.O. 691305. : Opposite party
ORDER
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant availed an agricultural loan from the opposite party bank on 06.06.2019 for an amount of Rs.56,000/- with interest @ 4% per annum. The loan was repaid and closed completely at that time the opposite party realized excess amount as interest of Rs.4,777/- for 345 days. At the time of availing the loan the complainant had made enquiries and was told that there is no need of tax receipts for loan up to Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite party informed that the non-entry in the bank register had caused the increase in the rate of interest. As a result the complainant who is farmer is sustained loss of money due to the mistake committed by the opposite party bank. The register maintained by the bank is not within the control of the complainant. The State Government has decided several schemes of loan with regard to the agricultural development. The complainant who is a farmer have all sought of right to avail these benefits and the bank is obliged to provide this to the complainant as per law. The act of the opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite party bank is to return the complainant the excess amount received as interest for an agricultural loan having subsidy which is decided the government. Hence the complaint.
Though notice was issued from the Forum/Commission to the opposite party . Opposite party failed to appear before the commission nor made any representation hence opposite party set exparte. Complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Exts.A1 and A2 documents. Heard the complainant in person and per used the records. Ext.A1 is the original bank receipt issued on 15.05.2020 for an amount of Rs.60,777/- paid by the complainant at the time of closing the agricultural loan. Ext.A2 is the copy of the details of the passbook.
The unchallenged averments coupled with Exts.A1 and A2 documents would establish prima facie that the complainant had availed an agricultural loan from the opposite party @ 4% interest per annum. Thereafter he had closed the said loan on 15.05.2020 for an amount of Rs.60,777/-. At the time of closing the loan the opposite party had realized Rs.4,777/- for Rs.345/- days. It is pertinent to note that at the time of availing the loan complainant had made enquiries and the opposite party made belief that tax receipts are not necessary for this loan it is only required for the loan up to Rs.1,00,000/-. Further they informed that the non-entry in the registers maintained by the opposite party bank effected the increase in rate of interest. It is a settled government policy to promote agricultural development various projects of agricultural loans are declared by the government for the welfare of the farmers. The complainant had approached the opposite party and avail the said loan on the basis of this government policy. All the government proposed agricultural loan consists of subsidies for helping the farmers to enrich agriculture. The opposite party had made a strong belief in the complainant the agricultural loan availed by the complainant is only having an interest of 4% of interest. The opposite party is obliged to provide the complainant the perfect service of agricultural loan by providing the subsidy. But they failed to fulfill their obligation at the time of availing the agricultural loan and realized excess amount as interest as it is an agricultural loan having subsidy. The complainant had made several requests to the opposite party to return the excess interest recovered from him for which they evaded from the same.
On evaluating the entire materials available on record the opposite party had realized excess amount for an agricultural loan having government subsidy. The act of the opposite party by realizing excess amount as interest from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. So we are of the view the complainant had sustained mental agony apart from financial loss. In the circumstances we are of the view the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
- The opposite party is directed to return back the excess amount of Rs.2,660/-and also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency service on the part of opposite party.
- The opposite party is directed to complainant with above direction within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which complainant is entitled to realize the amount for Rs.5,660/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the realization along with the costs from the opposite party and by charging on their assets both movable and immovable.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 20th day of July 2022.
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
(President I/c)
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.A1 : The original bank receipt issued on 15.05.2020
Ext.A2: The copy of the details of the passbook
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
