By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :-
 

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
 

The complaint in brief is as follows :- The Complainant availed a loan for agricultural purpose from the Opposite Party. The loan amount could not be renewed 2004. The Opposite Party approached the Complainant and offered that the loan taken by the Complainant can be renewed if signed in the papers shown to her. The agricultural loan availed by the Complainant was waived under the debt relief scheme. Whereas the Opposite Party in the issuance of the loan made a portion of the amount for business purpose. The loan amount issued in business purpose is not within the awareness and acknowledgment of the Complainant. The Opposite Party sent demand notice for the repayment of Rs.33,357/- the Complainant not in a position to remit the amount demanded by the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint for declaring the amount not liable to be paid by the Complainant.

2. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The Complainant availed a loan along with the P.M. Sathyanathan her son as Co-obligant/co-borrowers to the loan transaction. The papers were executed by the borrowers under head of Rs.50,000/- for agricultural short term crop loan and Rs.15,000/- under personal consumption loan. The separate applications were signed and given by the Complainant and as security the land property having the crops Coffee, Pepper and Arecanut in R.S. No.289/2pt of Puthadi Village were deposited. The terms of repayment of loan PCL 5/04 was liable to be repaid in instalments Rs.5,000/- plus interest in each year and it is to be closed within 3 years. The agricultural loan was written off whereas the PCL loan did not include in the scheme and it was not waived off. The personal consumption loan was availed voluntarily with proper acknowledgment of debt and the non payment of the personal consumption loan by the Complainant does not amount to the deficiency in service or any illegal act. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

3. The points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank.

2. Relief and cost.

4. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of Complainant and Opposite Party. Exts. A1 series and B1 to B4 are the exhibits produced in this case. The Complainant's son is examined as PW1 and the Opposite Party also gave oral testimony as OPW1. The case of the Complainant is that the loan amount delivered by the Opposite Party became due to the non repayment. The personal consumption loan of Rs.15,000/- availed by the Complainant was not acknowledged voluntarily by the Complainant. PW1 admitted that the loan was availed by the Complainant and the co-obligant P. M. Sathyanathan, the eldest son. The Ext. B4 is the true copy of the loan application dated 12.3.2004. The clause No. 15 of the loan application form clearly specifies that the Complainant availed Rs.15,000/- under personal consumption for a period of 3 years. The allegation of the Complainant is that the personal consumption loan availed by the Complainant is not known to them and the Complainant and P.M. Sathyanathan Co-obligant (generator) signed in the application form which is not disputed. The land property in Survey No.287/1, 289/2 are pledged as security while availing the loan. It is also clear from the documents that the complainant was issued Rs.15,000/- in loan No. KCC/1286 dated 06.11.2000. Later the loan was renewed on 12.3.2004. The signature of the Complainant/ co-obligant are admitted by the PW1 in this case. The Complainant further contended that when the loan were renewed in 12.3.2004 the amount sanctioned directly went to the debit of the Complainant. The collateral security of the land property deposited is not delivered in the absence of clearing the liability. We are in the opinion that the Complainant have not cleared the amount due to the Opposite Party. It is also admitted that the loan under the head of personal consumption does not entitle for waiving under the scheme of debt relief. The dispute here in does not warrant the interference.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed, no order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 27^th February 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMEBR: Sd/-

MEMEBR: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Haridas P.M. Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Peethambaran. Officer, South Malabar Gramin Bank.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 series (3 numbers) Letter.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. True extract of the PCL 5/2004.

B2. True extract of the KCC 3424.

B3 series Copy of Pronote and Accompanying Papers.

(7 sheets)

B4. Copy of Application for Personal Consumption Loan. dt:12.03.2004