SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the OP to refund Rs.36,479/- with interest to the complainant and to pay compensation for mental agony of the complainant for the deficiency of service on his part.
The brief of the complaint :
The complainant had availed a Kissan credit card loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from OP’s bank on 28/12/2015 and the loan to be renewed on 28/12/2015. The term of loan is 5 years and is a subsidized loan also. The loan to be renewed on 28/12/2016 and then the complainant renewed the loan and remitted the amount as subsidy rate. Thereafter the next renewal date belongs to 27/12/2017. On 27/12/2017 the complainant approached OP’s bank for renewal the loan and remitted the interest amount as Rs.48,476/-. But the OP’s bank not allowed the interest subvention to the complainant. The complainant was lost Rs.36,479/- his incentive interest subsidy for prompt repayment. Then the complainant enquired the matter to OP’s bank and they stated that 3% subsidy is not credited to complainant’s account and he was not eligible to get the incentive interest subsidy. Moreover he paid 12% interest to the loan for 2 years also. Thereafter on 6/1/2018 the complainant send a letter to OP to get the interest subvention. The OP replied that the complainant defaulted to comply with the terms of the agreement and he is not eligible for the interest subvention. In the Kissan credit card loan scheme the borrower has to remit the entire interest with principal amount within one year from the date of disbursement of the amount in order to renew the transaction. Then only the borrower would be entitled to get the incentive for prompt repayment. But the complainant lostRs.36,479/- the subsidy interest only due to the negligence of the OP. So the complainant lost the incentive interest subsidy for repayment. The act of OP, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint notice issued to OP. After receiving notice OP entered before the commission and filed his written version . The OP contended that in the KCC loan scheme the borrower has to remit the entire interest with principal amount within one year from the date of disbursement of the amount. Then only the borrower would be entitled to get the interest subvention. In case of default in repayment as agreed the borrower has to pay interest at the prevailing rate, for the time being in force. The complainant has availed the loan on 28/12/2015 and as such he was bound to pay the interest and the principal amount within the stipulated period of one year he was not eligible to get the incentive interest subsidy for prompt repayment. The complainant is not entitled for any relief sought in the complaint. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and the complaint is not maintainable. Then the complaint may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked . On OP’s side DW1 was examined and no documents marked.
Issue No.1:
The Complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as PW1 by OP. The documents Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to the complainant, he has availed a KCC loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 28/12/2015 from OP’s bank. Then the complainant renewed the loan on 28/12/2016. Thereafter on 27/12/2017 the complainant approached OP’s bank for renewal of the loan and he remitted an amount of Rs.48,476/- as the interest. But the OP’s bank not allowed the interest subvention to the complainant. The complainant was lost Rs.36,479/- the interest incentive subsidy . In Ext.A1 on 27/12/2017 the OP send a letter to the complainant to renewal of KCC A/c No.40493131000964 on 28/12/2015 and the account is due for renewal on 28/12/2017. The balance outstanding in the account as on date is Rs.348479/- and to renew the KCC account before due date . In Ext.A2 the complainant send a letter to Regional Manager of OP regarding the 3% subsidy and he remitted Rs.48476/-. The complainant paid 12% interest to the loan for 2 years. In Ext.A3 the complainant send a lawyer notice to OP and stated that he is eligible to get the incentive interest subsidy of KCC loan. But the OP not allowed the subsidy the complainant lost Rs.36,479/- as the interest subsidy. In Ext.A5 is the statement of account for the period of 28/12/2015 to 27/12/2017. It clearly shows that the complainant renewed the loan and he was lost Rs.36,479/-, the interest incentive subsidy. In the evidence of PW1 who deposed that “ കാലാവധി തീരുന്നതിന് മുൻപ് നിങ്ങൾ മുതലും പലിശയും അടച്ച് loan പുതുക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ? പലിശ അടച്ച് പുതുക്കി ഒരു വർഷത്തേയ്ക്കു നീട്ടി ” Moreover in the evidence of DW1, he stated that “പലിശ അടയ്ക്കുമ്പോൾ subsidy കഴിച്ചുള്ള തുക അടച്ചാൽ മതി ? ശരിയാണ്. 28/12/2016 ന് 13000/- രൂപ credit ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട് Ext.A5 ൽ? ശരിയാണ്. ഇത് ആ വായ്പയുടെ ഒരു വർഷത്തെ subsidy കഴിച്ചുള്ള പലിശയാണ്? അതെ.പലിശ മാത്രം അടച്ച് വായ്പ പുതുക്കാൻ സാധിക്കും എന്നുള്ളതുകൊണ്ടാണ് പ്രസ്തുത തുക വാങ്ങിയതെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ? ശരിയല്ല. പിന്നെ എന്തിനാണ് പലിശ അടച്ചത്. പാർട്ടി വന്ന് പലിശ മാത്രം അടച്ചു. ആയതിൽ നിങ്ങൾക്ക് തർക്കമില്ലായിരുന്നു. വായ്പ കുടിശ്ശിക ആയാൽ 3 മാസത്തിനുള്ളിൽ ക്ക് defaulterക്ക് notice അയക്കും? ശരിയാണ്. ഈ കേസ്സിൽ അന്യായക്കാരന് അതിനിടയിൽ യാതൊരു demand noticeഉം അയച്ചില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ? File നോക്കിയാലെ പറയാൻ പറ്റുകയുള്ളൂ . വായ്പ പുതുക്കുക എന്നു വച്ചാൽ വായ്പയ്ക്ക് subsidy അർഹതയുണ്ട് എന്ന് തന്നെയാണ്? ശരിയാണ്. 27/12/2017 ന് പരാതിക്കാരൻ മുതലും നാളിതുവരെയുള്ള പലിശയും ചേർത്ത് 348476/- രൂപ അടച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്? ശരിയാണ്. യാതൊരു subsidy യും ആ സമയത്ത് പരാതിക്കാരന് നല്കിയിട്ടില്ല? ഇല്ല. 2015-2016 വർഷത്തെ അനുവദിക്കേണ്ടിയിരുന്ന subsidy യും 2016-2017 വർഷത്തെ subsidy ഇല്ലാത്ത മുഴുവൻ പലിശയും ഉൾപ്പെടെയാണ് 48,476/- രൂപ ഈടാക്കിയത്? ശരിയാണ്. So the complainant is not obtained the incentive interest subsidy. So we hold that the OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. So that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party . Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue Nos.2&3:
As discussed above the, the complainant remitted Rs.48476/- on 27/12/2017. But the OP’s bank not allowed incentive interest subsidy. So the OP is liable to refund the interest subsidy to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the OP is liable to pay Rs.36,479/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant along with Rs.6000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.36,479/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant along with Rs.6000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.36,479/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Reply notice
A2-Notice to OP issued by complainant
A3-Notice to OP by complainant
A4- postal receipt
A5- ledger copy of account.
PW1- Brijeesh.K-complainant
DW1-Hari.M.P-OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR