DATE OF FILING : 19/07/16

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of March  2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 203/2016

Between

Complainant       :  Benny Mathew,

                                                                            Valumannel,

                                                                            Ramakkalmettu P.O., 

                                                                            Kallar, 685 552.,

                                                                            Idukki District. 

And

Opposite Party                                          :   1 . The Branch Manager,

                                                                               Union Bank of India, 

                                                                               Nedumkandam – 685 553.

                                                                         2 . The Regional Manager,

                                                                               Union Bank of India, 

                                                                               Kodimatha, Kottayam – 686 013.

(By Adv: Sijimon K.Augustine)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

Complainant  availed a gold loan from opposite parties bank under Agricultural Scheme on 03/06/13, for an amount of Rs.1,76,500/-, agreed to repay with its interest within one year.  While so, the wife of the complainant was treated for heart attack and underwent By-Pass surgery.  Hence he cannot repay the loan amount or its interest.  Now, the complainant received a notice from the first opposite party bank demanding the loan amount with interest. In this notice bank specifically stated that, in default of the payment, they will initiate gold auction proceedings.  Complainant further averred that in this notice bank demanded an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- as loan dues, it is against the norms of RBI.  Bank calculated exorbitant interest in this loan and it is clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant filed this petition for directing the opposite parties bank to withdrawn from the auction proceedings and further direct the opposite parties to re calculate

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....2)

-2-

the loan dues by deducting the penal interest and other charges and further direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version contenting that the purpose of the loan availed by the complainant is for conducting seasonal agricultural activities.  The due date of loan repayment was 02/06/14, which is specifically mentioned in the gold loan card.  As per the Guidelines of Government of India, for doing seasonal operation of crops, gold loan is eligible for subsidised rate of 7% which is eligible for a period of one year.  Additional interest subvention of 3% per annum is available to the prompt repaying farmer.  As per this loan the subsidised interest rate is applicable only if the party remitting the loan within one year and if the party failed to comply it, he will lose their subsidy and the interest rate will go for its normal rate.  The normal rate of interest for gold for agricultural loan as on 02/06/14 was 10.75%.  This opposite parties intimated the complainant to renew the loan after remitting the entire amount together with interest in order to avail the fruits of interest subvention scheme, but the complainant failed to do so.  In view of the default, the complainant is bound to pay an additional interest @ 2%, which is the prevailing rate.  Inspite of repeated demands, the complainant failed to remit the loan dues and hence the loan account of the complainant has been running irregular and the complainant had violated the contracted terms, his loan is classified as Non-Performing Asset on 30/06/16, and the first opposite party initiated recovery proceedings by the sale of gold ornaments in auction.  As on 30/06/16, an amount of Rs.2,40,200/- plus interest and other charges from 01/07/16 is due to the opposite parties from the complainant.  The opposite parties promptly intimated the complainant by registered notice about the sale of gold ornaments and even after the receipt of notice also no response from his part.  Fact being so, the complainant had approached this Forum, by suppressing the real facts with a view to delay the recovery  proceedings.  This opposite parties never charged interest entitled to recover the loan amount together with interest.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 were marked.  Ext.P1  is the copy of demand notice, Ext.P2 is the discharge summary of  complainant's  wife  and  Ext.P3  is  the  copy  of  receipt  dated  16/08/16,   

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....3)

-3-

Ext.P4 is the copy of gold loan token and Ext.P5 is the gold token (original).  From the opposite side manager of the first opposite party was examined as DW1.  Ext.R1 to Ext.R6 were marked.  Ext.R1 is the Karunya Benevolent fund pre-authorisation letter dated 17/04/15, Ext.R2 is the copy of loan agreement, Ext.R3 is the copy of tax receipt, Ext.R4 is the news papers publication, Ext.R5 is the copy of RBI Master Circular dated 01/07/10, Ext.R6 is the copy of Master Circular dated 4/12/13.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

 

The Point:-  We have heard the counsels for both sides and had gone through the evidence on record.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed a Agricultural Gold Loan of Rs.1,76,500/- from the first opposite party bank on 03/06/13 and agreed to repay it within one year, with agreed rate of interest.  The due date of loan was 02/06/14.  On perusal of the document it is seen that, in their loan account complainant has miserably failed to remit any amount by way of interest or principle amount.  Hence the opposite party bank categorised the loan as Non-Performing Asset and issued demand notice, against the complainant.  On evaluating the  points of argument, the Forum convinced that  since the complainant was a chronic defaulter, he lost the subsidized interest rate provided under this scheme and the interest rate of this loan had gone to its normal rate ie, 10.75%.  The matter was also intimated to the complainant and even after the receipt of notices, the complainant evaded from the payment of loan dues.  Hence the opposite parties bank added 2% penal interest in the loan and calculated the loan dues as per the directives of the RBI.  Thereafter the bank initiated gold ornaments auction proceedings after complying the usual formalities.  For strengthening their version, opposite parties bank produced all relevant documents before this Forum and none of the documents are challenged by the complainant.  More over the complainant is failed to cross examining the manager of the first opposite party who was examined as DW1, in order to substantiate their version.  The reason put forwarded by the complainant for non- payment of the loan was due to treatment of his wife.   For  proving  this  fact  complainant

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....4)

-4-

produced Ext.P2 discharge summary of his wife Kochurani.  Against this fact, the opposite parties produced Ext.R1 documents, showing that the treatment expenses incurred by the complainant was met with the  Karunya Benevolent Scheme of the Government and this fact was admitted by the complainant in the box, while on cross examination.  Hence this version of the complainant cannot be believable.

 

On the basis of above discussion and on evaluating the evidence on records, the Forum is of a considered view that the complainant is legally bound to clear the dues,  and the act of the opposite parties bank in this matter is based on their rules and regulations and there is no case of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is happened on the part of the opposite parties bank.  Hence complaint dismissed.  No order to cost.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of March, 2019.

 

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                         SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                          Sd/- 

                                                                                      SMT.ASAMOL P.  (MEMBER)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....5)

-5-

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -Benny Mathew

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -Binoy V.B

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  The copy of demand notice

Ext.P2            -  The discharge summary of complainant's wife

Ext.P3          - The copy of receipt dated 16/08/16

Ext.P4          - The copy of gold loan token

Ext.P5          - The gold token (original).

On the side of the Opposite Party :

 

 

Ext.R1 -The Karunya Benevolent fund pre-authorisation letter dated 17/04/15 Ext.R2-The copy of loan agreement

Ext.R3 -The copy of tax receipt

Ext.R4-The news papers publication

Ext.R5-The copy of RBI Master Circular dated 01/07/10

Ext.R6 -The copy of Master Circular dated 4/12/13.

 

 

                  Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT