By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant’s case is that he has availed a loan for Rs.50,000/- from the respondent on 25/1/2000. He closed the loan account on 31/10/2007 as per the one time settlement scheme. The respondent has pronounced several concessional measures under one time settlement scheme. But they did not keep their words at the time of closing the loan. The complainant asked the details of interest taken from her. But no information was given. Hence a notice was issued on 5/11/07. The respondent did not give a reply. The respondents have taken Rs.15,000/- in excess from the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. The respondent filed a counter version to the effect that the complainant has not stated the actual amount to be remitted by her and also the amount remitted after deducting the concession granted under one time settlement scheme. The complainant has allowed all the concession mentioned in the circular dated 3/5/07 issued by the Registrar of co-operative Societies. No excess amount as mentioned in the complaint has been collected. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Is the complainant entitled to get the amount claimed for ?
2) Is there any unfair trade practice committed by the respondent in the case?
3) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. Evidence adduced are Exhibits P1 to P4, Exhibit R1 and the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1.
5. Points : The complaint is filed against the alleged unfair trade practice in collecting excess amount from the complainant when she closed the loan under one time settlement scheme. The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent on 25/1/2000. The loan was closed under one time settlement scheme on 31/10/2007. The complainant has stated that she was not granted any concession promised under one time settlement scheme. At the same time the respondent collected Rs.15,000/- in excess from her. The respondent denied the allegation. They have stated that the complainant has been granted all the concessions mentioned in the one time settlement scheme. The complainant has not stated the actual amount to be remitted and the amount remitted as interest. And no excess amount has been collected from the complainant.
6. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibit P1 to P4 marked. Exhibit P1 is the duplicate copy of the receipt issued at the time of closing the loan. The complainant has remitted Rs.1,06,322/- at the time of closing the loan. Exhibit P2 is the loan pass book issued in favour of the complainant. On a perusal of the entries in the Exhibit P2 it is seen that the complainant was allowed Rs.1,916/- as interest rebate and Rs.7029/- as penal interest rebate. PW1 has deposed that she has remitted Rs.1,06,322/- at the time of closing the loan. But she does not know that it is the amount after allowing the concession announced by the Registrar of Co-operative societies.
7. The complainant availed the loan on 25/1/2000 and closed on 31/10/2007. The complainant has stated that she remitted Rs.15,000/- in excess and also that she was not given any concession announced under one time settlement. However the complainant has not stated the amount to be remitted by her as interest. Without stating the amount to be remitted by her she cannot state that she had remitted Rs.15,000/- in excess. At the same time Exhibit P2 reveals that she was sanctioned interest rebate and penal interest rebate and Exhibit P1 reveals that these amounts were not seen included in the Exhibit P1 receipt. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get back any amount and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 12th day of April 2013.
