DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  05 ^th day of December, 2023

Present  : Sri.Vinay Menon V. President

                       : Smt. Vidya.A., Member

              : Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member

                  Date of filing: 02/12/22                                                   

CC/241/2022

Sankara Narayanan C M - Complainant

S/o KrishnannNair

Nandanam House

Bheemanadu Po

Kotteppadam 1 Village

Mannarkkad, Palakkad 678 583

(By Adv. Aswathy Mohan)

                          Vs

The Branch Manager, - Opposite Party

Panjab National Bank

Mannarkkad Branch, Mannarkkkad

Palakkad 678 582

(By Adv. P M Ramesan)

O R D E R

Prepared by Sri Krishnankutty N K, Member

1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief

The crux of the complaint is that the opposite party initiated recovery action for higher amount than what was reflecting in the statement of accounts of the complainant maintained by the opposite party.

The complainant availed 2 Mudra loans of Rs 6 lakhs and 4 lakhs from the opposite party. The repayments were regular in the beginning, but became irregular due to Covid. According to the statements issued by the opposite party, the outstanding amounts in the accounts were Rs 2,60,719/- and 1,37,089/- respectively as on 20/06/2020. When the complainant approached the opposite party for clearing the dues, it was found that the amount outstanding shown was much higher than the amounts as per the statement. The complainant’s allegation is that when he asked the opposite party to clarify the matter, they did not respond and initiated RR against the complainant and threatened to attach his immovable properties. Aggrieved by this he approached Honourable High Court of Kerala with a writ petition (No. 14572/2022); but the High Court disposed the petition reserving the petitioner’s liberty to approach the Banking Ombudsman, Consumer Forum or Civil Court. Hence this complaint is filed seeking orders directing the opposite party to produce the entire record and exact figure of loan transaction, apart from a compensation of  Rs.6,00,000/- for the loss suffered and Rs 1,00,000/- for mental agony along with cost of litigation.

• The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed their version     explaining their position. Their contentions are:-

(1). The loan availed is for a commercial venture by the complainant, hence the complainant is not maintainable under CP

Act,2019.

(2).  The complaint  is bad  for non-joinder of Bank as a party.

(3). As per the direction of RBI,(till December 2020)  when the loan accounts become NPA, the interest amounts are accounted separately in a mirror  account and hence the Bank statement, or passbook shows only  the liability excluding the mirror account balance. Hence the total liability is the total of the amount reflecting in the statement plus the mirror account balance. Further the amount received from CGTMSE under their Guarantee Scheme is credited to the loan account which is the reason for the statement of accounts showing a lesser balance. These amounts are to be refunded to them when the recovery is made from the complainant.

      3.  The following issues were framed for consideration

(a) Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of Bank as a party to the complaint?

(b) Whether the complaint is maintainable as the complainant is engaged in commercial activities as claimed by the opposite party?

(c) Whether the amount credited by CGTMGE will have to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party bank?

(d) Whether the conduct of opposite party is in accordance with the RBI guidelines pertaining to NPA during the relevant period?

(e)  Whether there is any Deficiency in Service or Unfair Trade  Practice on the part of opposite party?

(f) Whether the complaint is entitled to the reliefs claimed?

(g) Reliefs as to cost/compensation.

4.  Inspite of repeated opportunities given, the complainant did not file

Proof Affidavit or mark any documents as evidence. The opposite party also did not file Proof Affidavit. Hence the case was taken for orders based on merits.

5 By not filing Proof Affidavit and marking any documents as evidence, the complainant has failed in his primary duty of proving the case as per Section No. 38(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to any relief.

           Pronounced in open court on this the 5^th day of December, 2023.

                                                       Sd/-   Vinay Menon V

President

  Sd/-

Krishnakutty N K

Member.