BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 15th of February 2012
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.177/2010
(Admitted on 05.06.2010)
- Mrs. Ayisha, Wo. Hamza,
Aged about 32 years,
Montepadav,
Naringana Village,
Bantwal Taluk.
- Shameema, W/o Rafiq,
Aged about 28 years,
Montepadav,
Naringana Village,
Bantwal Taluk.
- Zohara, D/o Mohammed,
Aged about 20 years,
Montepadav,
Naringana Village,
Bantwal Taluk.
- Aleema, D/o Ibrabhim,
Aged about 30 years,
Montepadav,
Naringana Village,
Bantwal Taluk.
- Sariya, W/o Abdul Basheer,
Aged about 32 years,
Montepadav,
Naringana Village,
Bantwal Taluk.
- Miss Ayisha, D/o Hassan Kunhi
Aged about 21 years,
Montepadav,
Naringana Village,
Bantwal Taluk.
- Sakeena,
W/o Ahammed Kunhi,
Aged about 47 years,
Montepadav,
Naringana Village,
Bantwal Taluk.
All are members of Sahana
Swa Sahaya Sangha,
Montepadav,
Naringana Village,
Bantwal Taluk.
For self and on behalf of said Sahana
Swa Sahaya Sangha,
Montepadav,
Naringana Village,
Bantwal Taluk.` …….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainant:Sri. B.A.Mohammed Hanif)
VERSUS
- The Director,
Shree Kshethra Dharmasthala,
Gramabhivriddi Yojane (R),
Dharmasthala,
Belthangady Taluk, D.K.
- Yojanadhikari,
Shree Kshethra Dharmasthala,
Gramabhivriddi Yojane (R),
Opp. Dharmasthala Kalyana Mantapa,
Belthangady Taluk, D.K.
- Kumaresha, Sevaniratha,
Shree Kshethra Dharmasthala,
Gramabhivriddi Yojane (R),
Naringana,
Belthangady Taluk, D.K.
- Pradeep Iraa,
Mudipu Superintendant,
Shree Kshethra Dharmasthala,
Grambivriddi Yojane (R),
Mudipu, Bantwala Taluk, D.K.
- The Manager,
Canara Bank,
Ammembala Branch,
Bantwal Taluk. …. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties1 to 4:Sri.K.S. Sharma)
Advocate for the Opposite Party No.5: Sri Krishna Prasad M.S.)
* * * *
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainants stated that, they are the members of Sahana Swa Sahaya Sangha, Montepadavu, Naringana Village, Bantwal Taluk. It is stated that, among the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Party No.3 is a Seva Niratha and Opposite Party No.4 is the Superintendant of Opposite Party No.1. During the year 2005, the complainants have formed Sahana Swa Sahaya Sangha and the Opposite Parties have granted a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the said Sangha through the Canara Bank i.e., Opposite Party No.5. Out of the said loan Rs.20,000/- was disbursed on 06.02.2006, Rs.80,000/- was disbursed, on 04.08.2006 and Rs.80,000/- was disbursed on 13.06.2007, the rate of interest was 11% and 12.5% respectively. The complainants stated that, they were regular in the matter of repayment of the loan as per the monthly chart issued by the Opposite Parties. As per the report dtd.02.06.2008 of the Accountant of the Opposite Parties, the complainants had to pay a balance of Rs.79,785/- in respect of the said loan account. It is stated that as per the entry in the Bank Pass Book issued by the Opposite Party No.5, as on 14.05.2008 a sum of Rs.59,073/- was the deposit amount. Subsequently, the complainants have deposited a sum of Rs.60,216/- to the said Bank Account. It is stated that, the Opposite Parties have debited a sum of Rs.1,19,062/- between 06.06.2008 till 24.08.2009 from the Bank Account of the complainants. It is stated that, thereby, the Opposite Parties have in excess and illegally collected a sum of Rs.39,277/- from the account of the complainants. It is stated that, the Opposite Party No.5 should not have allowed such withdrawal of the amount.
Further it is stated that, the earlier payments, proper entries have not been made, the said act of the Opposite Parties, made them to collect the above said illegal amount, which amounts to deficiency in service. Thereafter feeling aggrieved by the above, the complainants issued a registered lawyer legal notice dtd.31.12.2009 called upon the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 to return the said amount collected in excess. It is stated that, the loan was obtained for the duration of three years and the same was repaid within 2 ½ years and collection of interest for the remaining six months was illegal and there was no default whatever on the part of the complainants. It is further stated that, once the installment chart is given, the final due amount cannot change. The complainants have voluntarily paid Rs.1,06,191/- towards Pragathinidhi loan and Rs.12,871/- towards the interest in this case, which is excess amount unilaterally and illegally deducted by the Opposite Parties. Hence, the above complaint came to be filed, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from the Opposite Parties to repay a sum of Rs.39,277/- with @ 20% interest from 06.06.2008 till payment and along with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel, Opposite Parties 1 to 4 filed common version and Opposite Party No.5 filed separate version in this case.
Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 stated that the complainants were the members of Sahana Swa Sahaya Sangha, Montepadavu, and started their own Sangha for their benefit and self development. It is denied that the Opposite Parties have granted a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the said Sangha through Canara Bank i.e., Opposite Party No.5. It is stated that, infact the Opposite Party No.1 on being approached by the Sangha for financial assistance had arranged the loan amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- through the Opposite Party No.5 to the Sangha on three different occasions and disbursed the loan amount accordingly to the Sangha on variable interest on time to time according to R.B.I. guidelines applicable to the rate of interest. The Sangha had opened Savings Bank Account with the Opposite Party No.5 and the loan was disbursed by crediting the loan amount on three different occasions to the Savings Bank Account on 06.02.2006 Rs.20,000/-, on 04.0.2006 Rs.80,000/- and on 13.06.2007 Rs.80,000/-. It is denied that the complainants were regular in the matter of repayment of loans as per the monthly chart issued by the Opposite Parties and also denied that the complainants had to pay balance sum of Rs.79,785/-. Infact, the Opposite Parties have not advanced the loan to the complainants in their personal capacities. On the other hand, they have arranged the loan amount on three different occasions as stated supra and the complainants were supposed to repay the loan amounts on monthly installments through their Savings Bank Accounts in Canara Bank. The total loan amount with interest repayable by the complainant is Rs.2,15,958/-, which is inclusive of reduced amount of enhanced 14% rate of interest with effect from 01.04.2007 plus Service Charge of Rs.1,800/-. The Opposite Parties have not collected any excess amount from the complainants. It is also denied that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service nor collected illegal amount from the complainants. It is stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The Opposite Party No.5 stated that there is no aspect of any service or the jural relationship between this Opposite Party and the complainants or others. As far as loan is concerned, it is stated that, this Opposite Party is not a party to any of the transactions. Regarding the entries in the pass book, this Opposite Party updated the entries as per the ledger maintained by the Bank. The debiting of the amount from the Savings Bank Account is based on the standing instructions given by the complainants and other Opposite Parties and it is also denied that this Opposite Party has collected excess amount or allowed the withdrawal from the Savings Bank Account. This Opposite Party is no way concerned with any of the interse arrangements, undertakings between the complainants and other Opposite Parties. The 5th Opposite Party is not a necessary party to this complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mrs. Ayisha (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her. Exs.C1 to C10 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail. One Sri Chandrashekhar (RW1) – Project Officer of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. One Sri Narayana Naik, Officer of the 5th Opposite Party has also filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. The Opposite Party produced 2 (two) documents as listed in the annexure in detail. The Complainant produced notes of arguments.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainants prove that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i):Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii):As per the final order.
REASONS
5. Points No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, from the outset, we have noticed that the complainants, who were the members of one Sahana Swa Sahaya Sangha, Montepadavu, Naringana Village, Bantwal Taluk, came up with this complaint stated that during the year 2005, the complainants have formed Sahana Swa Sahaya Sangha and the opposite parties have granted a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the said Sangha through Canara Bank i.e., Opposite Party No.5. Out of the said loan Rs.10,000/- was disbursed on 06.02.2006, Rs.80,000/- was disbursed on 04.08.2006 and Rs.80,000/- was disbursed on 13.06.2007 and the rate of interest was 11% and 12.5% respectively. It is also stated that, they were regular in the matter of repayment of loan as per monthly chart issued by the Opposite Parties. According to the complainants, they had to pay a balance sum of Rs.59,073/- as on 14.05.2006, but the opposite parties have debited a sum of Rs.1,19,062/- and collected the excess amount of Rs.39,277/- from the account of the complainants. Produced several documents i.e., Exs.C1 to C10 which contains Loan Sanction Letter, Receipts-157 in numbers were produced before the Forum to show that the complainants deposited the amount on different dates with the Opposite Parties. By producing the above documents, it is alleged that, the opposite parties have collected excess amount from the complainants.
However, this is a case before us a purely account dispute in a loan transaction obtained by the complainants from the Opposite Parties. Further, we noticed on record that, it is a purely interse arrangements between the complainants and the Opposite Parties which need to be investigated and determine by recording of voluminous evidence. Since the complicated nature of the question of fact and law arised for decision which are not capable of being determined by summary enquiry. Therefore, we find that, in order to meet the ends of justice, it is convenient to relegate the matter before the Civil Court for detailed enquiry then definitely the ends of justice will be met.
In view of the above discussions, we hold that the complainants are hereby directed to approach the Civil Court for redressing their grievances and not before this Forum under the summary trial. Therefore, the complaint is closed with a liberty to approach the Civil Court for the proper remedy.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is closed and the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court. No order as to cost.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.
(Page No.1 to 12 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of February 2012.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mrs. Ayisha– Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – Original of Bank Pass Book.
Ex C2 –Loan repayment schedules.
Ex C3 –Auditor’s report by Somanath.K.
Ex C4 –Bank’s Statement(computer sheet).
Ex C5 –31.12.2008: True copy of legal notice sent to the Opposite Parties.
Ex C6 to C9: Postal Acknowledgements(4 in Numbers).
Ex C10 -11.1.2010: Reply issued by Opposite Parties.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Sri Chandrashekhar (RW1) – Project Officer of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4.
RW2 - Sri Narayana Naik, Officer of the 5th Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex R1 – True Ledger Extract of Canara Bank, Mudipu Branch.
Ex R2 - 6.2.2006, 4.8.2006 and 13.6.2007: Request letter given by the complainants regarding the mode of repayment of loan.
Dated:15.2.2012 PRESIDENT
