D.O.F:04/03/2021
D.O.O:10/04/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.57/2021
Dated this, the 10th day of April 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
M/s Grand Builders Uppala,
Represented by its Promoter,
Mr. MohammedAyoob, aged 58 years,
S/o Abdul Karim, AsiyanaHouse, : Complainant
Mulinga Village, Pathwadi,
Uppala Post,
Manjeshwara Taluk- 671322
(Adv. Suresh .K.P)
And
- The Branch manager,
M/s Kerala Financial Corporation,
High Land Plaza, M G Road,
Kasaragod – 671121
: Opposite Parties
- The Managing Director,
M/s Kerala Financial Corporation,
- vellayambalam
- Thiruvanathapuram- 33
(Adv. ManikandhanNambiar.K)
- The Deputy Tahsildar for Revenue Recovery,
Taluk Office for Kasaragod Taluk,
Kasaragod Post- 671121
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed on the ground of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
The facts of this case in brief is as follows: The complainant, being a partnership firm obtained a loan of Rs.54,000,00/- from the Opposite Party No.1 and 2, for the purpose of construction business. The complainant repaid a total amount of Rs.19,97,021/-by various payments. Due to covid the complainant could not pay some instalments. Even though the interest agreed upon was at the rate of 9.5% per annum, the opposite party charged higher rate of interest. The complainant was intending to close the loan as per the terms and conditions of the agreement but the opposite party demanded Rs.79,47,895/- as per letter dated 07.01.2020. Now the opposite part sent the file to opposite party No.3 for RR proceedings and the complainant received a demand notice dated 20.02.2020 from opposite party for an amount of Rs.63,22,974/-. The amount is calculated without verifying the remittance made by the complainant, which is service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant apprehend that the opposite party will put their property for auction which will cause irreparable loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to drop all the proceedings in pursuant to the demand notice dated 07.01.2020 and to collect the yearly instalments as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and to pay compensation and cost.
The Opposite Parties entered in appearance through their counsels, who filed the written version.
As per the version of the Opposite Parties, the complaint is false frivolous and not maintainable. The complainant firm is acommercial organisation and the transaction between the complainant and opposite parties is purely commercial. The opposite party admitted that the complainant firm obtained a loan of Rs.54,00,000/- from the Opposite Party No.1 and 2, for the purpose of construction business. But the contentions that the interest agreed upon was at the rate of 9.5% per annum, the Opposite Party charged higher rate of interest etc. are incorrect. The rate of interest is 16.5% and Opposite Party, the Kerala Financial Corporation is entitled to collect penal interest at the rate of 2% on defaulted amount. The complainant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and defaulted in repayment of instalments. The opposite party issued notice dated 05.11.2020 under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act to take over the apartment of the complainant. Eviction Notice also given. The instant complainant is not maintainable as the RR proceedings is already initiated vide No.RRC2018/2838/14 dated 03.09.2018 and is in progress.
The complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove their case. No affidavit is filed nor produced any document and marked in support of complainant’s case. Based on the pleadings of the rival parties, the following issued are framed for consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable under law?
2. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?
3. If so, what is the relief ?
For convenience all these issues are considered together. The specific case of the complainant is that even though the interest agreed upon was at the rate of 9.5% per annum, the opposite party charged higher rate of interest. Now the opposite part sentthe file to Opposite Party No.3 for RR proceedings and the complainant received a demand notice dated 20.02.2020 fromopposite party for an amount of Rs.63,22,974/-. The amount calculated is against the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and without verifying the remittance made by the complainant, which is service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.
The Opposite Party argue that the complainant firm is a commercial organisation and the transaction between the complainant and opposite parties is purely commercial. Also, the complaint is not maintainable as the RR proceedings is already initiated vide No. RRC2018/2838/14 dated 03.09.2018 and is in progress. There is complete bar for filing any petition/complaint/suit against the RR proceedings.
It is well settled that the remedy provided by the consumer protection Act is not in derogation with any existing law, but an additional remedy available to the consumer. The instant complaint is filed on the ground of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. If there is any evidence of service deficiency or unfair trade practice, the complaint would have been considered as maintainable. But they failed to prove any service deficiency on the part of the opposite party, by leading reliable evidence.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the legal issues raised by the parties, this commission hold that the complaint is not maintainable.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
