| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER Wednesday, the 31st day of July 2024 CC. 247/2019 Complainant Thomas Mathew @ Tony, S/o Dr. C.T. Mathew, 6/245, Manimuriyil Centre, Bank Road, Calicut – 673 001. Opposite Party The Branch Manager, M/s Union Bank of India, Nellikocode Branch, Subhadra Building, Mavoor Road, Kozhikode – 16. (By Adv. Sri. K.T Vikas) ORDER By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. - The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant had availed a consumer loan of Rs. 40,000/- from the opposite party bank on 07/12/2001. The complainant paid the entire balance amount of Rs. 2,903/- outstanding in the loan account on 25/07/2011. - But on 10/08/2012 he received a notice from the District Legal Services Authority, Kozhikode informing that the loan is in arrears and directing him to be present on 24/08/2012 before the Lok-adalath. As per the pre litigation petition filed by the opposite party there was a balance due of Rs. 2,903/- towards the principal amount and Rs. 8,641/- towards interest, total being Rs. 11,544/- to be paid to the bank. In fact, the matter had already been settled finally for Rs. 2,903/- as per OTS scheme on 25/07/2011. It was endorsed on 24/08/2012 and acknowledged in the Lok-adalath by the opposite party bank on the reverse side of the account details statement.
- But on 2/06/2015 the Revenue Recovery Authorities came to the office of the complainant which is situated in his own building and created a scene in front of the tenants and made an attempt to attach the movables. It was realised that the RR proceedings were initiated by the bank for an amount of Rs. 12,549 + Rs. 50 towards demand notice charge and also 15% interest. The complainant convinced the Revenue Recovery Officers that he had paid the amount in the OTS scheme before the Lok-adalath and pacified them. However, the incident has damaged the reputation of the complainant and lowered his prestige. The tenants and neighbouring shop owners were given the impression that he is a fraud. The act of the opposite party in initiating the revenue recovery proceedings has resulted in intense mental agony and tension to him.
- On 20/05/2017 the complainant received a notice from the bank informing him of one time settlement opportunity to clear an amount of Rs. 18,178/- . The complainant also received a notice from the Legal Services Authority for the adalath on 5/07/2017. The complainant fails to understand why a matter that had been settled through OTS scheme should be settled again. On 02/12/017 the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the bank, to which, the bank sent a reply with untenable contentions. The bank has now included the name of the complainant in the CIBIL list and he is now unable to avail any loan. His application for education loan for his daughter was rejected as his name is included in the defaulter’s list. The opposite party bank has not removed his name from the CIBIL list even after the settlement of the dues. It is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to drop all the non-existing and unwanted claims initiated against him and remove his name from the CIBIL list and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by him and for the loss of the reputation, along with Rs. 25,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
- The opposite party bank has resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. The availing of the loan of Rs. 40,000/- on 7/12/2001 is admitted by the bank. But the allegation that as on 24/02/2012 there was a balance of Rs. 11,544/- to be paid to the bank and that the matter was settled in the Lok-adalath for Rs. 2,903/- as per OTS and the amount was paid in the OTS scheme etc. are absolutely false. Actually the complainant had not remitted any amount on 24/08/2012 or afterwards and till date he has not closed to the loan by making payment.
- The complainant’s account became NPA on 12/09/2004 and despite repeated requests, no amount was paid by the complainant and hence the bank was compelled to initiate proceedings to recover the amount due. The allegation that he was humiliated and insulted in front of his tenants and general public is absolutely false and hence denied. The opposite party had no intention to humiliate or insult the complainant and the recovery officials had not insulted or humiliated him. On the other hand, they have only initiated proceedings in accordance with the law. The allegation that the reputation and prestige of the complainant was damaged and lowered due to the proceedings is false and hence denied.
- It is true that in the year 2017 another attempt was made to settle the matter through Lok-adalath and the matter was posted to 5/07/2014. But unfortunately the complainant failed to appear before the Lok-adalath. The allegations that the opposite party has included the name of the complainant in the CIBIL list and thereby making him unable to avail loans and that his daughter’s education loan application was rejected etc. are all false and hence denied. It is the duty of the complainant to maintain a good CIBIL score. The opposite party cannot do anything to improve his CIBIL score. There is no harassment, unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the bank and the bank is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant is to be directed to pay the loan amount due to the bank and close the loan. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
- Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank, as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs. - The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A12 on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let in by the opposite party.
- We heard both sides.
- Point No 1: The complainant has approached this Commission alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank. The specific allegation is that the bank has not closed his loan account despite paying the amount and had initiated revenue recovery proceedings against him which has lowered his prestige and damaged his reputation among the public. The prayer in the complaint is to direct the bank to drop all the proceedings initiated against him and remove his name from CIBIL list and pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to him.
- In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the pre-litigation petition and details of the account filed before the District Legal Services Authority, Kozhikode, Ext A2 is the copy of the adalath notice dated 10/08/2012, Ext A3 is the copy of the demand notice dated 22/11/2014 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar (RR) Kozhikode, Ext A4 is the copy of the letter dated 20/05/2017 issued by the bank for OTS, Ext A5 is the copy of the notice and pre-litigation petition, Ext A6 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 02/12/2017, Ext A7 is the copy of the reply notice dated 25/01/2018, Ext A8 and A9 are the copies of the notice issued by the bank, Ext A10 is the notice dated 10/08/2012 issued by the DLSA, Kozhikode, Ext A11 is the accounts statement for the period from 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2012 and Ext A12 is the proceedings in PLP (D) 212/2024 of the DLSA, Kozhikode.
- It is not disputed that the complainant had availed a consumer loan of Rs. 40,000/- from the opposite party bank on 07/12/2001. The case of the complainant is that he had paid the entire amount and closed the loan on 25/07/2011. The specific averment in the complaint is that the ledger balance was Rs. 2,903/-and it was paid by him on 25/07/2011. This has been stated in Ext A6 lawyer notice also. But this case of the complainant does not appear to be correct. Ext A11 account statement produced by none other than the complainant shows that Rs. 5,806/- was the amount due to the bank towards principal on that date. Admittedly, the loan account had already become NPA and hence the interest due to the bank would not be reflected in the loan account as it would be transferred to Interest Suspense Account once the loan account has become NPA. Out of the amount of Rs. 5,806/- as seen in Ext A11, Rs. 2,903/- was remitted by the complainant on 25/07/2011 and the balance due to the bank as on that date was Rs. 2,903/-. This is admitted by PW1 in the cross examination who also admitted that after 25/07/2011, no remittance was made by him towards the loan account. It is also admitted by PW1 that the bank approached the DLSA with the pre litigation petition for realising the balance amount as on 25/07/2011 and the interest accrued thereon. From the available evidence and the document produced by none other than the complainant and his categoric admission in the box, the case of the complainant that the entire amount due to the bank in connection with the loan was paid by him on 25/07/2011 is proved to be incorrect.
- The further case of the complainant is that the matter was again taken up in the Lok-adalath held by the District Legal Services Authority, Kozhikode and the matter was settled finally for Rs. 2,903/-. However, the award passed in the Lok-adalath is not forthcoming. There is an endorsement on the reverse of Ext A1 to the effect that ‘OTS settled on 25/07/2011’. This endorsement is on the details of the account attached along with the pre litigation petition and it is not the award of the Lok-adalath. Admittedly, it does not contain the signature of the complainant or the presiding officer or member of the Lok-adalath. The seal of the DLSA is also absent. If the matter was settled in the Lok-adalath, naturally there would be an award duly signed by the parties/counsel and the presiding officer and member of the adalath. No such award is produced before this Commission. It may be noted that there is absolutely no evidence indicating that the complainant had remitted any amount on 24/08/2012 which is the adalath date or thereafter towards the loan account. The document, if any, permitting the complainant to close the loan under OTS scheme is not forthcoming. The endorsement on Ext A1 by itself will not be sufficient to show that the loan account was closed.
- It is stated in Ext A6 that in the Lok-adalath the matter was settled finally for Rs. 2,903/- as OTS on 24/08/2012. PW1, in his proof affidavit has averred that on 24/08/2012 he had remitted Rs. 2,903/- in the presence of bank staff and officer of the DLSA. This contention is not supported by any evidence. No document is produced evidencing any such payment. The payment is not reflected in Ext A11 also. If the loan account was closed by making full payment or under OTS scheme on 25/07/2011 as contended by the complainant, what was the necessity to settle the matter under OTS scheme again on 24/08/2012 is not known. There is no definite and consistent case for the complainant. At one point he says that the entire loan amount was repaid on 25/07/2011, at another point he says that the matter was settled under OTS scheme in the Lok-adalath on 24/08/2012 and the amount was paid and yet at another point he says that the matter was settled under OTS scheme on 25/07/2011.
- It has come out in evidence that even thereafter there was another attempt in the year 2017 to settle the matter through Lok-adalath, but that was also proved to be futile. It cannot be thought that the bank authorities will demand payment to a loan account, if it was actually a closed account. It may be noted that it was only at the fag end that the complainant has come forward with a case that the loan account was closed on 25/07/2011 by making payment of Rs. 2,903/- under OTS scheme. There is no whisper in the complaint regarding any such settlement under OTS scheme on 25/07/2011. On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the evidence in hand, we are of the view that there is absolutely nothing in evidence to hold that the complainant had closed the loan account in question either by paying the entire dues or under the OTS scheme.
- According to the bank, the complainant’s account had become NPA on 12/09/2004. It goes without saying that the bank has every right to collect the money which is legally due to them by resort to legal methods. Revenue recovery proceedings is one of such legal methods. It cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the complainant or that his reputation was lowered due to the initiation of RR proceedings by the bank to recover the dues which is legally entitled to the bank. The evidence in hand indicates that there is dues. The complainant is a defaulter. It is for the complainant to maintain good Cibil score. That being the position, no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite party bank.
- To sum up, we hold that there is no proof of any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank and consequently the complaint must fail.
- Point No. 2:- In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 31th day of July, 2024. Date of Filing: 02/08/2019 Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant : Ext A1 -Copy of the pre-litigation petition and details of the account filed before the District Legal Services Authority, Kozhikode. Ext A2 -Copy of the adalath notice dated 10/08/2012. Ext A3 - Copy of the demand notice dated 22/11/2014 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar (RR) Kozhikode. Ext A4 - Copy of the letter dated 20/05/2017 issued by the bank for OTS. Ext A5 -Copy of the notice and pre-litigation petition. Ext A6 - Copy of the lawyer notice dated 02/12/2017. Ext A7 - Copy of the reply notice dated 25/01/2018. Ext A8 - copy of the notice issued by the bank. Ext A9 -copy of the notice issued by the bank. Ext A10 - Notice dated 10/08/2012 issued by the DLSA, Kozhikode. Ext A11 - Accounts statement for the period from 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2012. Ext A12 - Proceedings in PLP (D) 212/2024 of the DLSA, Kozhikode. Exhibits for the Opposite Party NIL Witnesses for the Complainant PW1 - Thomas Mathew @ Tony (Complainant) Witnesses for the opposite party NIL Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER True Copy, Sd/- Assistant Registrar. | |
