IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI.
Dated this 17th day of August, 2016
Complaint No.226/2015
Present: 1) Shri. B.V.Gudli, President.
2) Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi Member
3) Smt. Sunita Member
-***-
Complainants:
1) Mrs. Ujwala W/o. Rajendra Bongale,
Age: 53years, Occ: Household,
R/o. “Somanath Apartment”,
Flat No.T-6, 3rd Floor, 4th Cross,
Bhagya Nagar,
Belagavi-590006.
2) Shri. Rajendra Mahadev Bongale,
Age: 62years, Occ: Retired,
R/o. “Somanath Apartment”,
Flat No.T-6, 3rd Floor, 4th Cross,
Bhagya Nagar,
Belagavi-590006.
(By Sri. K.R.Shaha, Advocate).
V/s.
Opponents:
The Branch Manager,
Shree Mata Co-Operative Cr. Society Ltd., (Multi-state)
“Shreemata” New Goods Shed Road,
Belagavi-590006.
(By Sri. V.T.Sonwalkar, Advocate).
(Order dictated by Shri.B.V.Gudli, President)
ORDER
U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainants have filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the excess amount recovered under loan Account in auction.
2) After service of notice O.P. filed memo of undertaking and no objection is filed.
3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainants have filed affidavit and some documents are produced.
4) We have heard the argument of the complainants counsel and perused the records and taken the OP side as heard.
5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and entitled to the reliefs sought?
6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.
:: R E A S O N S ::
7) On perusal contents of the complainants and affidavit filed by the complainants, the allegations are that they belong to poor family and to maintain the family & to earn livelihood complainant.1 started her small business in the name of “Apoorva Readymade Garments”, at SPM Road, Belagavi and it was difficult to run the shop without finance and decided to take loan from OP. The complainant further alleges that the OP agrees to sanction the cash credit amount of Rs.5 lakhs and after hearing the OP on loan agreement terms and conditions opened loan account no.44/A on 11.01.2001 for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and complainant.2 stood as surety and the personal house property bearing CCB No.46 situated at Sambaji Galli, Belagavi, was given as security and utilized the cash credit. The complainants further alleges that they failed to clear the loan amount intime and the OPs by arbitration case no.947/2002-03 before the DRCS Belagavi claiming total amount with interest of Rs.7,33,318/- & also started proceeding U/s.138 of N.I.Act against the complainants. The complainants further alleges that on 13.08.2012 on request the OPs furnished the detailed statement of accounts and it was found that for a period from 01.12.2000 to 13.08.2012 there was balance due of Rs.6,87,646/- & the details balance shown as on 08.01.2003 is Rs.6,82,628/-, the balance shown for the period from 01.12.2000 to 13.08.2012 of Rs.6,87,646/- & the statement of interest shown for the period from 01.04.2003 to 28.02.2013 is Rs.13,01,811/-. The complainants further alleges that, as he was serving in Sangli Bank Ltd., Maruti Galli, Belagavi knows the procedures of preparing statement of account of bank and accordingly after preparing the statement of account on 14.03.2015 submitted to the OPs and same was not considered by the OP. The complainants further alleges that, the OP decided to sell the property of complainant no.2 which was given as security and one Sri.Daivadnya Co-Op. Bank had decided to purchase the house for an amount of Rs.20 lakhs & after completion of formalities the house was transferred to them (Society). The complainants further alleges that behind the back of the OP sold out the property and on 01.03.2013 the OP issued the certificate of Rs.5 lakhs towards the principal and stated that total Rs.20 lakhs amount with interest has been received and closed the account of the complainant. The complainant approached the OP personally requesting the OP to give detailed calculation in regards to interest received on principal amount but even after giving written objections the OP never responded and on 28.10.2013 complainant issued legal notice and on 11.11.2013 the OP replied vaguely and looking to the reply the OP has caused monetary loss of Rs.6,02,899=20 and caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and prays to allow the complaint.
8) On the other hand though the OP appeared through counsel and filed memo of appearance, no vakalat or any objection in defence of the OP has been filed. The complainant has produced the affidavit and documents. On perusal of the documents we noticed that the loan was sanctioned and the complainant failed to pay the dues and accordingly as per the contents of the complainants the property given in security was sold by the OP. The only allegation of the complainants is that the property one sold for recovery of loan dues was for Rs.20 lakhs, but the statement of account supplied to the complainant as on 01.03.2013, the closing balance for the period from 01.04.2003 to 28.02.2013 is Rs.13,01,811/- & hence the OP has got excess amount of Rs.6,02,899=20, which the complainant is entitled for reimbursement. After perusal of the entire documents and more specifically the certificate which is duly sealed by the Branch Manager with signature for the OP society wherein we can see that the certificate is addressed to the 1st complainant and the CC loan of Rs.5 lakhs is mentioned and date of loan is shown as 11.12.2000 & the interest of Rs.20 lakhs, paid & a/c is closed on 01.03.2013. Here we notice that and also it is the clear allegation of the complainants that the OPs have played unfair trade practice in calculating the interest & moreover it is the allegation of complainant that they have recovered excess amount of Rs.6,02,899=20. Even though as on 01.03.2013 the balance was Rs.13,01,811/- as per statement of account of the account. If at all the OP was entitled for the entire amount of Rs.20 lakhs, the OP would have been fair enough to supply the copy of the statement of interest to the complainant and also appear before the forum and would have contested the allegations of the complainants. Herein this case OP has even though appeared through counsel by filing memo of appearance failed to file objections to the allegations of the complainant. Therefore we are of the opinion that whatever the allegations of the complainant has to be believed and accepted. Hence considering the facts and allegations the complainants have proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP in collecting excess loan amount than the outstanding dues tobe paid by the complainants.
9) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P has been proved.
10) Accordingly, following order.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The O.P. represented as shown in the cause title is hereby directed and liable to pay the amount of Rs.6,02,899=20 to the complainants along with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 01/03/2013 till realization of the entire amount.
Further the O.P represented as shown in the cause title is hereby directed and liable to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.
Further the O.P represented as shown in the cause title is hereby directed and liable to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainants towards costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the OP is hereby directed to pay additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- with the period stipulated.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 17th day of August 2016)
Member Member President.
msr*
