Date of filing : 03-05-2012
Date of order : 05 -03-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.146/2012
Dated this, the 5th day of March 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
1 Mansoor, S/o.Abdulla, : Complainants
R/at Kallatra House, Kizur,
Po.Chandragiri, Kasaragod.
2.Rahmath, W/o.Mansoor,
R/at Kallatra House, Kizur,
Po.Chandragiri, Kasaragod
(In Person)
The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, : Opposite party
Kasaragod branch, Padhoor Shopping complex,
Kasaragod.
(Adv.O.Vinodkumar, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of the complainant Sri.Mansoor is that his wife had availed a housing loan from opposite party. Rs.1,50,000/- was the loan amount. Complainant was paying the loan instalments regularly. In the meanwhile opposite party started R.R proceedings against the complainant. Opposite party agreed to withdraw the R.R requisition on payment of Rs.7000/-. Accordingly it is paid. Complainant is challenging the action of opposite party in proceeding with R.R. Proceedings without giving a notice of demand. The action of opposite parties is highly illegal, it caused acute mental pain and sufferings. Complainant is claiming Rs.75,000/- towards damages and refund of collection charges.
2. Opposite party filed counter statement admitting the disbursement of housing loan. Opposite party denied that opposite party has obtained collection charges of R.R. proceedings from complainant. Opposite party denied the allegation that due to the acts of opposite party complainant suffered acute mental pain and sufferings. The cause of action alleged is imaginary. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts.A1 to A4 marked. Opposite party’s counsel cross-examined the complainant. Opposite party also filed proof affidavit. Exts. B1 to B5 marked. Heard both sides. The issues raised for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so what is the relief?
4. Issue No.1: Complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from opposite party. Ext.A1 is the demand notice prior to attachment dated 29-11-2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The main allegation of the complainant is that before initiating R.R. proceeding no notice issued to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the demand notice issued under Sec.7 is the notice issued by the opposite party demanding the complainant to pay the arrears of Rs.14,000/- dated 20-06-2010. Ext.B4 is the notice prior to R.R proceedings. Ext.A3 is the receipt for payment of Rs.7000/- by the complainant on 13-03-2012 to his loan account. Ext.A4 is another receipt dated 18-04-2012 by which complainant paid Rs.1,26,398/- to his loan account. Directions of RBI is that if three or more instalments are defaulted to pay, the loan will be declared as NPA. If an amount had declared as NPA it is the duty of the Bank authorities to start recovery proceeding which are shown in the Housing Loan Agreement marked as Ext.B5. While perusing Ext.B1 statement complainant was not a chronic defaulter. Opposite party started R.R. proceeding when there is only when Rs.7000/- was due, according to the Directives of RBI if 3 or more instalments are due it is the duty of the bank authorities to start recovery proceedings but here, only 2 instalments are due, the action of opposite party was not supported by the Directives of RBI. Hence it is illegal. According to opposite parties initiating R.R. proceedings because of the default made by the complainant. But notice charges is not seen deducted in Ext.B1 statement. Moreover, it is stated in Ext.B3 that, the charges of that notice Ext.B3 is Rs.400/- shall be deducted from the complainant’s account. Ext.B3 was not a registered notice or lawyer notice charging of Rs.400/- for Ext.B3 is illegal. We are surprised by seeing Ext.B3 it is an unfair trade practice and exploitation on the side of opposite party. Due to the shock given by opposite party by initiating R.R proceedings when only 2 instalments are due, was illegal and it constrained complainant to close the entire loan account. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party which caused heavy loss and acute mental pain to the complainant. Even after paying Rs.7000/- as per Ext.A3, opposite parties failed to withdraw R.R. proceedings. Hence complainant is entitled for damages for the loss and hardship. Complainant has also claimed collection charges in the complaint it is not charged from the complainant while perusing Ext.B1 statement.
Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages to the complainant with a cost of Rs.3000/-. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 21-11-2011 Demand notice issued to the Tahsildar (RR) Kasaragod to complainant.
A2.29-11-2011 Demand notice under Section-7.
A3& A4. copy of Bank receipts
B1.Statement of account for the period from 19-03-2008 to 28-07-2012
B2. 19-03-2008 Photocopy of letter of sanction.
B3. 20-06-2010 Photocopy of Notice issued by Union Bank of India.
B4.20-09-2011 Letter sent by Union Bank of India to complainants.
B5. Copy of Housing loan agreement (SD-11)
PW1.Mansoor.
DW1. George Thomas.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
