Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/12/2020

Thomas D Souza - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

10 Mar 2022

ORDER

C.D.R.C. Kasaragod
Kerala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/2020
( Date of Filing : 15 Jan 2020 )
 
1. Thomas D Souza
R/at Talent,Seethangoli,Ednad.P.O,Kasaragod
Kasaragod
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Branch Manager
South Indian Bank,Seethangoli Branch,Seethangoli
Kasaragod
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. KRISHNAN K PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Beena.K.G. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. RadhaKrishnan Nair M MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 10 Mar 2022
Final Order / Judgement

D.O.F:15/01/2020

D.O.O:10/03/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.12/2020                                                                                                                                                

Dated this, the 10th   day of March 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                        : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

 

Thomas D Souoza

R/at Talent

Seethangoli

Ednad P.O

Kasaragod District                                       : Complainant

(Adv: Mohanan Nambiar.M)

 

 

And

 

The Branch Manager,

South Indian Bank,

Seethangoli Branch                                                            : Opposite Party

Seethangoli

Kasaragod

(Adv: O. Vinod Kumar)

ORDER

 

SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT

     The case of the complainant is that he is an account holder of Opposite Party bank for more than 3 years.  He availed a Kissan card loan from Opposite Party bank of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 28/09/2018 for a period of 1 year.  He is eligible for subsidy for interest fixed at Rs. 7000/-.  He cleared the loan on 30/09/2019 but the bank refused subsidy for the reason that the amount remitted not in time.  Complainant obtained copy of the statement of account, then came to know that loan amount debited from his account on 18/10/2019 and an additional amount Rs. 717 towards interest from 29/09/2019 to 17/10/2019 and Rs. 400 towards stamp paper, Rs. 472, Rs. 590 and Rs.472 towards account opening charges.  The Opposite Party illegally collected the excess amount not adjusted subsidy amount without any reason.  There is deficiency in service complainant seeks following relief directing the opposite Party to pay subsidy of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant without opening charges Rs. 590/- and Rs. 472/- and direct to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony and inconveniences and cost of the litigation Rs. 3000/-

2.     The Opposite Party filed a version, further amended as per order in IA 23/2021 dated 06/03/2021.  Central Government subsidy for 3% will be credited to those accounts closed before the prescribed due dates.  The due date of the loan of the complainant is on 29/09/2019.  Complainant remitted the funds on 30/09/2019.  No instruction given to the bank to close the bank account.  The amount was credited on 30/09/2019 after 2 days of due date.  Only 1 day delay in re-payment.  Amount was remitted 2 days after due date.  Subsidy is a Central  Government project .  Bank has nothing to do with credit to subsidy.  Since no repayment within due date subsidy not credited following charges are payable by the customer to the bank.   Property valuation charges Rs. 500 service tax, Rs. 90.00 total Rs. 590.  Processing fee 400 service tax 72 total 472 stamp duty 400.  Last date for payment 27/09/2019 .  the complainant closed the account only on 18/10/2019.  Hence interest of Rs. 717 is collected and hence no deficiency in service and suffering of mental agony, financial loss physical agony.  Therefore complaint is to be dismissed.

3.     The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1 Ext A1 to A4 documents marked.  Ext A1 loan account statement, Ext A2 is the relevant pass book page Ext A3 and A4 are the circular by the government subsidy.

Opposite Party filed documents marked as Ext B1 to B6. Ext B1 is statement of account, Ext B2 is loan application, Ext B3 loan sanctions agreement, Ext B4 hypothication agreement Ext B5 circular, Ext B6 Notification by RBI.

4. Based on the rival contentions following points raised for consideration.

a)  Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Party bank

b) Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?

5.     All the points taken for discussion together. The fact that complainant having a loan account with Opposite party bank is admitted by the Opposite Party.  It is also admitted that the entire loan amount with interest are repaid by the complainant on 30/09/2019.  It is also true that 28/09/2019 and 29/09/2019 are holidays to the bank.  Therefore repayment is done on 30/09/2019.  The Opposite Party further admits that complainant is entitled for subsidy as claimed by the complainant.  Bank also admit due to late repayment to bank subsidy is not credited.  Details of other charges justifying the claim are given in the loan account summary.  In cross examination Pw1 admits that the money due to his account.  He also admits that he did not inform the bank to transfer money from SB account to loan account charges.  Repayment was on 30/09/2019.  Further he states that loan payment on 30/09/2019.  but Opposite Party collected the amount due by credit to the account only on 15/10/2019.  So funds were made available by complainant in his account and it is for the bank to debit the same on the due dates as and who required.  There is no justification in denying credit of amount to the loan account, account of customer to be eligible for subsidy and subsidy should have been credited along with loan amount as per requirement of customer on the due dates by credit to his loan account.  Non payment of subsidy is not a matter for consumer dispute.  But here subject matter is deficiency in service is not adjusting subsidy amount eligible but dnied arbitrarily and before rejecting no opportunity to heard was given to party.  On 28/09/2019  and 29/09/2019 are holidays and no payment can be made.  Of course amount due was paid as 30/09/2019 and then it is the duty of bank to adjust the full amount towards loan account.  But amount is credited to loan account only 18/10/2019 for which there is no justification and thus there is deficiency in service.  Bank is liable to pay the complainant the subsidy amount of Rs.3000/- other payments are made to bank not refundable.  Since amount of subsidy is not adjusted in time complainant is entitled to compensation.  Considering nature of dispute and attended circumstances, Opposite Parties is directed to pay Rs. 3000/- towards subsidy amount along with Rs. 5000/- as compensation and cost of litigation Rs. 3000/- .

     In the result complaint is allowed in part.  The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) complainant as subsidy along with compensation of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with litigation cost of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) within 30 days from date of receipt of the order.

   Sd/-                                                       Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

 

Exhibits

A1- Statement of account

A2- Relevant pages of bank pass book

A3- Circular

A4-Circular regarding the subsidy of Central Government.

B1- Account of statement

B2- Loan application

B3- Loan sanction agreement

B4- Hypothecation agreement

B5- Circular,

B6- Notification by RBI

Witness Examined

Pw1- Thomas D’ Souza

 

     Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-                                                Sd/-

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

 

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

 

Ps/

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. KRISHNAN K]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Beena.K.G.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RadhaKrishnan Nair M]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.