By. Smt. E.Ayishakutty, Member.
Complainant took a loan of Rs. 25000/- from opposite party on 18/10/2004. Due to the financial crisis he couldn't make the payment with in the prescribed time. Hence the opposite party initiated revenue recovery proceedings and the request of complainant government permitted him to pay the defaulted loan arrears with 45 installments. As per government order complainant was paying the installment amounts and in the mean time complainant received a letter from the opposite party by inviting him for the settlement of the loan. As per the letter complainant approached the bank and as per the direction of opposite party complainant had paid Rs. 3000/- to opposite party as one time settlement. After then opposite party sent a notice to the village officer who has been collecting loan arrears from the complainant as per government order stating that the loan is settled under one time settlement. On the basis of this letter the village officer stopped the revenue recovery proceedings. Then after two months on 26/8/2009 opposite party sent a notice to the complainant asking him to pay the loan amount. Then complainant approached opposite party with this notice and the manager told him that it is a mistake on the side of the bank. Then On 20/3/2010 complainant availed a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs by mortgaging gold ornaments of his daughter. He was remitting the installments promptly. In the meantime opposite party sent a letter to the complainant demanding him to settle the gold loan as well as the loan which he already closed under OTS on 3/8/2010. Opposite party sent notice to the complainant stating that if the amount claimed under the previous settled loan and the outstanding under the gold loan is not paid on or before 10/8/2010 the opposite party will sell the gold ornaments and will appropriate the same. The gold ornaments were of his married daughter and so feared the problem at the husbands home of his daughter complainant remitted Rs. 33901/- towards the previous settled loan and whole amount under the gold loan. Now the complainant paid Rs. 33901/- towards the previous loan which was already closed under one time settlement. Opposite party has no right to demand any further amount towards the settled loan. The act of opposite party is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence he filed this complaint before the Forum praying to direct opposite party to return the amount Rs. 33901/- with interest and compensation of Rs.10000/- along with cost Rs.2000.
Opposite party version filed. He denies the allegations and averments of complainant except those which he specifically admitted. Complainant is not a consumer or a beneficiary as defined under consumer protection Act. There is no complaint for him that opposite party collected any illegal amount but he claims some amount as if the matter was settled at one time settlement. The complainant availed loan and delayed payments and obtained a government order but he didn't comply the order also. There after he approached opposite party and bargained for reduction of the liability saying pathetic situation and misguided the bank for taking steps under OTS. Opposite party admits the issue of loan Rs. 25000/- on 18/10/2004. He is liable to pay the loan 1000/ month and interest as time to time credited by 25 equal consecutive monthly installments. Complainant paid Rs.3000/- on 17/10/2007 and never cared to make any other payments even though the repeated oral and written requests and even after personal visit of officers of opposite party. The loan classified as NPA and Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated by opposite party. Opposite party state that the averment of complainant that the government had given an order of payment by 45 installments is unknown to him and so opposite party followed up the matter with borrows for realization. On believing the statements of illness and other pathetic situation of the complainant opposite party forwarded recommendation for an additional amount of Rs 8000/- including the payment of 5 thousand paid by him on 16/3/2009, while the actual liability was Rs 36084/- as on 3/6/2009. The branch was not competent to settle for such meager amount, hence the recommendation was forwarded to higher authorities and the request was turned down by the higher authorities. During the consideration of the settlement by the branch the branch thought that the request of the complainant was genuine and an amount of Rs.3000/- was received and letter was issued to the RR authorities to stop all further proceedings in the matter in order to avoid any unpleasant situation during the agony of complainant but the bank never stated that the entire amount was received or given set for because it could only be considered as final if the higher authority sanction the same. The higher authority not granted accord the recommendation and the liability as per the one time settlement was not finalized, no Ada lath order was given . So the bank was forced to take further steps for realization of the loan and issued letters to the complainant for payment of remaining liability complainant never revealed any details of government order. The branch of opposite party issued letter to RR authority and which was handed over to complainant believing that he wouldn't take undue advantage on fairness of opposite party. The amount came in to the account of complainant till 3/6/2009 was Rs.14845/- and 3000 on 3/6/09. Complainant availed gold loan of Rs. 2 lakhs by way of pleading 23.25 sovereign gold ornaments on and after declaring that the ornaments belongs to him and he is the true owner. Complainant availed the gold loan on 20/3/2010 and there by the other liability was also secured. There fore the bank insisted the complainant to clear the earlier liability and so he cleared the first liability and there after the second liability . All these are done for making aware about the rights and authorities of opposite party and which ultimately ended in the repayment of loan amount. The first liability ought to have cleared by 25 months but it was cleared after 5 years. Demanding the loan amount or informing the consequences will never tact amount to threat, or violation or deficiency of service. Complainant pledged his gold ornaments worth 3 lakhs on and after making the to believe that he has no source to pay the liability. While the true picture of the complainant was came out, the bank had the option to realize actual sum which was outstanding since the recommendation of the branch was not sanctioned. Opposite party has not done any deficiency in their service and so complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of opposite party.
Complainant filed affidavit with documents as evidence. Ext A1 to A11 marked on his side. Opposite party counter affidavit filed. No documents produced on his side. Complainant was examined as Pw1
The main points for consideration
(i) Whether opposite party is deficient in their service.
(ii) It so what is the relief and cost.
The allegation raised by the complainant against opposite party is that opposite party had collected from him Rs.33901 towards the loan. Which he already closed on 3/6/09 under one time settlement. Complainant availed a loan of Rs. 25000/- on 18/10/04 from opposite party for the period of 25 months. Due to the default in the payments opposite party initiated revenue recovery proceedings. On the request of the complainant to government he had got installment facility from the government he had got installment facility from the government to pay the loan arrears as 45 installments. As per the government order complainant had paid 13 installments. Meanwhile complainant had received a letter from opposite party inviting him to participate the adalath on 3/6/09 for settlement of loan arrears. Accordingly he attended the adalath and his loan account was settled as one time settlement. Opposite party directed him to pay RS.3000/- as the amount due to the opposite party and it was paid on 3/6/09. Opposite party issued a letter to the village officer stating that the loan is settled under OTS. Then on 20/3/2010 complainant availed a gold loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from opposite party by mortgaging his daughters ornaments. Then on 3/8/2010 opposite party sent a letter to the complainant stating to settle the gold loan as well as the loan which he already closed on 3/6/2009. opposite party told the complainant that he would sell the gold ornaments which he had pledged to the loan and appropriate the sum to the loans including the loan which he had already closed under OTS. The gold ornaments was his married daughter and so fearing the problem of her husbands house on selling the ornaments complainant remitted Rs. 33901/- towards the previous settled loan and whole amount under gold loan. Opposite party content that complainant availed a loan of Rs. 25000/- on 18/10/2004 for the period 25 months. But complainant had paid 3000 only on 17/10/2007 and never cared to make any other payment even though the repeated demands made by him. So the loan was classified as NPA and initiated revenue recovery proceedings. Opposite party states that he has not known about the government order of paying 45 installments. Therefore he too necessary steps to realize the loan arr ear. Complainant came to the bank for settlement and opposite party believed the statement of complainant about his illness and other pathetic situation and no means to remit the loan. So opposite party forwarded recommendation for an additional amount of Rs. 8000 including the payment of Rs. 5000 paid on 16/3/2009 While the actual liability was Rs. 36084/- as on 3/6/2009 that is after a span of 4 years from the date of lending since the branch was not competent to settle for such a meager some, the recommendation was forwarded to higher authorities. But the request was rejected by the higher authorities. During the consideration of the settlement by the branch, the branch thought and believed that the request of complainant was genuine and an amount of Rs. 3000 was received and letter was issued to the RR authorities to stop all further proceedings in the matter. Since the higher authority didn't accept the recommendation of the branch regarding the one time settlement of this loan opposite party forced to take further steps to collect the loan arrear from the complainant. The complainant availed the gold loan on 20/3/2010 and there by the other liability was also become secured. Opposite party admits the averment of complainant that his loan account was settled under one time settlement and opposite party directed him to pay Rs. 3000/- towards the remaining balance. Ext A2 also clarified this averments. As per Ext A2 the village officer, who was collecting the loan arrears as per the order of government, stopped the collection from the complainant. Opposite party says that the higher authority rejected the recommendation of the branch for the settlement of the meager amount and so collected the loan arrears of Rs.33901 from complainant. Opposite party has not produced any documental evidence to prove his contention that the higher authority rejected the settlement. Complainant was paying his loan arrear by installments. He had paid 13 installments at the time of one time settlement. Opposite party admits that he did not know about the installment facility granted by the government to the complainant. Opposite party invited the complainant to the adalath and the loan account was settled under one time settlement. The order also issued to the RR officer, Then after lapse of months again he collected the arrear amount by threatening that the mortgaged gold ornaments in another loan would sell and appropriate the sum to the previous loan. Such act of opposite party amounts a gross deficiency of service. Therefore we hold that opposite party is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 33901 which he collected from the complainant on 18/8/2010 as per Ext A5.
In the result the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.33901/- to the complainant along with cost of Rs. 2000/- with in one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated this 30thday of April 2012
sd/-
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : M.K. Ahammad :
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A11
Ext.A1 : Registered letter issue by opposite party dated , 20/5/2009
Ext.A2 : Attested photocopy of the one time settlement order issued by opposite party to the village officer.
Ext.A3 : Registered notice sent by opposite party to the complainanton3/8/2010
Ext.A4 : The payment receipt of Rs.3000/- dated 3/6/2009
Ext A5 : The payment receipt of Rs.33901/- dated 18/8/2010
Ext A6 : Copy of statement of accounts for the period form 18/10/2004-16/8/2010.
Ext A7 : Registered notice to the complainant dated 26/8/2009.
Ext A8 : Registered letter sent by opposite party to the complainant dated 8/5/2010
Ext A9 : The order of the principal secretary to government by giving installment facilities the complainant
Ext A10(s) : Payment receipts (original)
Ext A11 : Certificate of the village officer regarding the payment by installment
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
