SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opp.party to release the title deeds of property mortgaged by the complainant with the opp.party in CC Loan Account No.13 and for getting compensation, cost and other reliefs.
The complainant’s case is that even after collecting a huge amount which is more than sufficient of what is entitled to the opp.parties by the complainant, the opp.party refused to release the documents of the properties mortgaged by the complainant demanding an additional amount of Rs.75,000/-
The opp.party’s case is that the complainant never remitted sufficient amount for the settlement of loan account as per guidelines in the Circular for OTS Scheme. The complainant was not discharged from his liability . The bank had never demanded an additional amount of Rs.75,000/- Instead of paying an amount of Rs.45,605/- as full and final settlement on or before 28..2..2009 the complainant had remitted only Rs.31,000/- unilaterally. The title deed cannot be released before remitting the full and final settlement amount.
The complainant filed affidavit
He was examined as PW.1 . Exts P1 to P4 marked.
No oral evidence adduced from the side of opp.parties. Ext. D1 marked.
Heard both sides.
The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opp.party?
2. Compensation and cost:
Points 1 and 2:
Admittedly the complainant availed Cash Credit Facility for a maximum limit of Rs.1,50,000/- at the rate of 18% interest. It is also admitted that the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 30..12..1998, Rs.25,000/- 0n 19..4..1999, Rs. 53,000/- on 18..7..99, Rs.50,000/- on 16..10..99 and Rs.43,000/- on 1.11..99 from the complainant’s account. It is further admitted that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 8..4..2000, Rs.1,20,000/- on 18..9..2000, Rs.50,000/- on 24.9.2003, Rs.35,000/- on 16..10.99 and Rs. 20,000/- on 1.11..99 and those amounts are credited in the CC Account.
According to the complainant a huge amount was drawn by the opp.parties towards interest. More than 36% interest extracted from the complainant.
According to the opp.party the bank had debited an interest only at the rate of 18% and penal interest at the rate of 2% after the date of over due of the loan as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement. Out standing balance in loan account on 28..2..2009 is Rs.56,686.57
There is no dispute regarding the aspect that the complainant is entitled for the benefits as per the Circular NO.1/09 issued by Co-Operative Department. The complainant alleged that the opp.party demanded an exorbitant amount to the extend of Rs.75,000/- violating all the directions of Co- Operative Department.
The definite contention of opp.party is that they had never demanded Rs.75,000/- for full and final settlement as per the OTS Scheme based on the circular NO.1/09 issued by Co-operative Department. As per the directions in the circular the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.45,602/- only as full and final settlement on or before 28..2..2009. But the complainant unilaterally remitted only an amount of Rs,31,000/- . As that amount was insufficient for full and final settlement it was kept in the suspense account and demanded the balance amount only. But the complainant was not responded to the genuine demand. Hence that amount was credited to the CC account of the complainant. Hence the balance amount as on 28..2..2009 is Rs.25686.57.
The complainant explained in the complaint itself that when he had calculated the amount and interest as on 28..2..2009 after deducting the benefits declared by the circular NO.1/09 the amount would come to around Rs.31,000/- only and so the complainant remitted only Rs.31,000/- . He had not explained how he had arrived at Rs.31,000/- as the full and final settlement amount.
The complainant had stated while in cross examination that he is not aware that the loan agreement should be renewed quarterly and the cash credit facility will become over due if the agreement was not renewed yearly. Further he had stated that it was not known to him whether his loan account became over due. The learned counsel for the opp.party put the question that cash credit account  \n¶pv F{X cq]m Fs¶ms¡ FSp-¯p- F¶p ]d-bmtam? PW.1 answered that “Rm³ t\m¡nbnÃv. t\#¡n-bmte Adn-bm³ ]äp-f-fp. “ The leaned counsel further put the question that “45602/--cq] Bh-i-y-s]«t¸mÄ \n§Ä 31000/þ am{Xta AS-¨p-ffp F¶p ]d-bp-¶pv a.. 31000/þ cq] am{Xta AS-bv¡p-hm-\p-ffp
From the oral testimony of the complainant itself it is obvious that the complaint is filed without bonafides.
The learned counsel for the opp.party argued that the complaint is filed with the ulterior intention of lagging the execution proceedings against the complainant based on the Award of Arbitration in ARC No.204/05 and E.A515/09. Even though the complainant denied that he had not received any notice related to the EA of ARC Award, he cannot deny the fact that an award was passed permitting the bank for realizing the outstanding amount with further interest at the rate of 18% from the complainant. The complainant has not challenged Ext. D1 copy of the Arbitration award passed by the Arbitration in ARC No.204/05. It is also pertinent to note here that the complaint is filed after the EA proceedings was started.
Considering the circumstances and on a detailed verification of the entire evidence adduced by both parties we find that there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opp.party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2012.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. Bhasheerkutty
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Pass book [CC Account No.13]
P2. Circular dated 8.1.2009
P3. - Receipt dated 28..2..2009
P3. – Representation dated 28..2..2009
List of witnesses for the opp.parties:NIL
List of documents for the opp.parties:
D1. - Award
