DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 04th day of March 2022.
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V, President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member
Date of filing: 21.10.2019.
CC/245/2019
T Seid - Complainant
S/o Moidu Haji,
Thazhathethil House,Attasseri Post,
Sreekrishnapuram (Via),
Palakkad 679 513
(Party in person )
Vs
1 The Manager/Assistant Manager,
State Bank of India,R.A.S.M.E.C Ottapalam Branch,
Opposite N.S.S.K.P.T High School,T.B.Road,
Ottapalam, Palakkad
2 The Manager - Opposite parties
State Bank of India
Karimbuzha Branch 346,
Kottappuram Post 679 513.
(By Adv.Natesan Anant)
O R D E R
By Smt Vidya A, Member
1. Brief Facts of the complaint
Complainant’s daughter has availed an educational loan of Rs.1,42,000/- from the 2nd opposite party during November 2017. The complainant repaid an amount of Rs 3,00,000/- towards the principal and interest. The complainant’s daughter did not get any job after her studies and the complainant is suffering from heart problem. So he couldn’t repay the balance loan amount. When the loan was defaulted, the Bank initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings against him. Later on, the matter was settled in Lok Adalath and an amount of Rs 60,000/- was paid on 20.03.2017 towards full and final settlement. But the Bank did not provide the loan closure certificate to the complainant inspite of his repeated requests. The Bank issued notice to pay the loan amount with 14% interest even after the settlement. This has caused mental and physical agony to the complainant who is a heart patient. So this complaint is filed for getting the loan closure certificate and Rs 1 lakh as compensation.
2. Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The main contentions in the version
The complainant’s daughter and the complainant as co-applicant had applied for an educational loan of Rs 1,61,250/- from the 2nd opposite party on 03.11.2017 agreeing to repay in monthly installments of Rs 2745/- which was to commence within six months after getting employment or one year after completion of course. But contrary to that, they failed to repay the amount and the account became NPA in Dec 2012. They repaid a total amount of Rs 1,49,810 till 31/05/2016. The Bank initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings against them. Later on the matter was settled in Lok Adalath for an amount of Rs 60,000/- with the opposite parties suffering a financial loss of Rs 60,000/-. The opposite parties are always ready and willing to issue the closure letter. But the complainant or his daughter never requested the Bank for issuing the closure letter. Even the time of first appearance before the Forum, they expressed their willingness to issue the closure letter which was refused by the complainant.
In order to encourage amicable settlement and to help NPA customers, opposite parties used to formulate one time settlement schemes and organize settlement camps from time to time and news letter about the same will be sent to customers. Somehow one such letter was sent to complainant’s daughter. The letter does not demand any amount or interest and did not contain any statement regarding consequences of failure to make payments and it cannot be termed as a Demand Notice.
There is no deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties and is not entitled to any relief claimed in the complaint. So the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit . The opposite parties also filed chief affidavit. No documents were marked from both sides. The Commission directed the opposite parties to file the closure letter and accordingly it was filed and handed over to the complainant.
5. Main points to be considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
2. If so,what is the relief as to cost of compensations
Points 1 & 2.
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant’s daughter availed an educational loan from the opposite party Bank and the loan became overdue and subsequently N.P.A. The opposite parties initiated Revenue recovery proceedings and finally it was settled in the Lok Adalath on payment of Rs.60,000/- by the complainant towards full and final settlement.
The only dispute is regarding the issuance of loan closure certificate to the complainant by the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the opposite parties did not provide the closure certificate even after repeated demands. The opposite parties denied this stating that they were always ready and willing to issue the closure certificate, but the complainant rejected their offer and filed this complaint.
7. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties handed over the closure certificate only after they were directed by the Commission. If they were ready and willing to provide the certificate , they could have produced it before the Commission on their first appearance itself. Their contention that the complainant refused to accept the certificate cannot be taken into consideration. The opposite parties have ample oppertunity to file the certificate before the Commission. But they failed to do so. This is clear deficiency in service on their part. So the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant for that. Even after the closure of the loan, the complainant did not get the closure certificate which would have caused mental agony. The complainant who is aged and heart patient was unnecessarily dragged before the Commission. So he is entitled to get compensation for his suffering.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties.
1. To pay Rs.7000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service and Rs.3000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.
Order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 04th day of March 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A Member
