By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:-

            This Consumer Complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            2.  Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant had availed a loan from Opposite Party No.1 and the said loan was closed by them on 16.03.2019.  But, revenue recovery notice was issued against the Complainant by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 alleging that the loan liability of the Complainants were still existing.  This has caused severe mental agony resulting in irreparable loss and injury to the Complainants.  The Opposite Party No.2 and 3 had initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the Complainants on the application of Opposite Party No.1.  Opposite Party No.1 had not intimated the closure of loan account of the Complainants to the second and third Opposite Parties.  The above facts were revealed by the reply notice dated 25.03.2022, issued by the second Opposite Party to the Complainants. But the first Opposite Party had not responded to the notice issued by the Complainants.  There has been deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Parties and hence this complaint with the following prayers

1. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation
2. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay cost of this complaint etc…

3.  The complaint was registered and summons were served upon the Opposite Parties for appearance.  Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed version.  For Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3, joint version was filed.

4.  Contents of version filed by Opposite Party No.1:-  It is true and admitted by the Complainant himself that he had availed a loan facility from Opposite Party No.1 bank and executed documents in favour of the bank undertaking to repay the loan amount together with interest and cost, if any, incurred by the bank for the recovery of the dues. Since the petitioner had made heavy default in repayment as agreed, Opposite Party No.1 was compelled to initiate recovery steps against the Complainant and accordingly Opposite Party No.2 & 3 who are the competent authority to proceed against the defaulter, under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.2 & 3 have duly intimated to proceed against the Complainant and notices were issued by Opposite Party No.2. Subsequently the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and expressed his willingness to settle the dues under OTS Scheme. Thereafter, the Complainant who was granted with maximum deductions in the interest, deposited the sum of Rs.6,40,000/- in full and final settlement of the dues and on receipt of the DD for the said amount, the bank intimated that recovery proceedings against the Complainant shall be withdrawn in due course by intimating Opposite Party No.2 & 3. It is pertinent to note that it is the bounden duty of the Complainant to intimate the developments subsequently happened to the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 in due course and to relinquish the recovery proceedings against him.  But unfortunately, the Complainant did not avail such course or make any representation to the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 to drop the recovery proceedings on the basis of the deposit made by him to the bank. As such it is a grievous default on the part of the Complainant to intimate the authority concerned regarding the settlement. It is submitted that apart from the notice issued to the Complainant, further steps were taken by Opposite Party No.1 to 3 for and on behalf of this respondent and no irreparable injury or loss has been sustained by the Complainant as alleged by him in the complaint. In other words the complaint itself is against the true facts and therefore not maintainable either in law or facts. The Complainant is not legally or factually entitled to any relief as claimed by the Complainant. There is no wilful negligence or default on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 in making request for withdrawal of the RR proceedings against the Complainant. Opposite Party No.2 & 3 have already submitted the version in detail.  Since there is absolutely no cause of action against the Opposite Party No.1 the petition is filed without any legal sanctity and purpose and it may be dismissed in the interest of justice.

5.  Contents of joint version filed by Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3:-  On the basis of the Order of the District Collector, considering the application of the Opposite Party No.1, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the Complainants.  Opposite Party No.2 and 3 had issued only notice of revenue recovery to the Complainants. They did not initiated any further action against the Complainants causing mental agony or hardships, as it was known later that the Complainant had closed their loan liability with Opposite Party No.1, availing the OTS of the bank.  At the time of issuance of notice to the Complainants, Opposite Party No.2 and 3 had not received any intimation from Opposite Party No.1 stating that the loan was closed. Only on 14.03.2022, on receiving a Lawyer notice from Adv. Anil. P. Bose, Opposite Party No.2 and 3 could realise that the bank loan was closed in 2019.  On the basis of the lawyer notice, report was sought from the Village Officer on 25.03.2022.  The Village Officer had reported on 26.03.2022 that the Parties had not remitted the money in the Village Office in respect of the loan and also reported that if the amount had been remitted directly to the bank, it had not been intimated from the bank.  Considering the report of the Village Officer, reply to the Lawyer Notice was issued to the Complainants.    No information in this regard was received from the bank up to 19.08.2022. But a letter was received from Opposite Party No.1 on 05.08.2022 stating that the Complainants had agreed to close the bank loan liability under the OTS Scheme and they had remitted Rs.6,40,000/- to the bank and a written consent had been given by the Complainants  in this regard.  It was also intimated to treat the revenue recovery requisition as withdrawn.  No other subsequent actions were taken by Opposite Party No.2 and 3 except issuing notice.    The Complainants had not intimated the closure of loan till date to Opposite Party No.2 and 3.  So, there has not been any deficiency in service or negligence from the part of Opposite Party No.2 and 3.  The Complainants have no right to get any relief as prayed for and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.  Complainant No.1 filed proof affidavit for and on behalf of himself and the Complainant No.2.  Ext.A1 to A5 were marked from the side of the Complainants and he was examined as PW1.  Affidavit was filed by Opposite Party No.2 for and on behalf of himself and the Opposite Party No.3.  Ext.B1 was marked from their side and Opposite Party No.2 was examined as OPW1.

7.  On going through the complaint and the evidences adduced by the Parties to the complaint, Commission raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Parties…?
2. If so, Cost and Compensation…?

8.  Point No.1:-  It is the admitted fact that the Complainants had availed loan from the Opposite Party No.1 bank.  It is also admitted that the same was closed by the Complainants on 16.03.2019 which is revealed by Ext.A1. As per Ext.A2, the Complainants were required to appear before the Revenue Recovery Adalath on 08.03.2022.  The said notice was issued by Opposite Party No.3.  On 05.08.2022, Opposite Party No.1 had issued a letter which is Ext.B1 stating that the loan availed by the Complainants were closed under the OTS of the Bank and Opposite Party No.1 requested the District Collector to withdraw the Revenue Recovery Proceedings.  The grievance of the Complainants is that though they had closed their loan liability early on 16.03.2019, the Opposite Parties issued revenue recovery notice and initiated proceedings against them which caused them severe mental agony and loss of reputation which is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Parties.  In cross-examination of PW1 by Opposite Party No.2 and 3 the witness has stated that “Opposite Party No.2 and 3 state F¶ ]cn[nbn \n¶v am{XamWv Imcy§Ä sNbvXXv F¶v ]dªm icnbmWv.  AhÀ¡v hogv¨ ]änbn«nÃ.  _m¦nsâ `mK¯mWv hogv¨ ]änbXv”.

9.  In this case, Opposite Party No.1 was set ex-parte.  Hence, no evidence was there from the part of Opposite Party No.1. As seen and stated above the loan liability ws closed by the Complainants on 16.03.2019.  Even though revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against them which is evident from Ext.A2 no further actions were taken against the Complainants.  Opposite Party No.2 & 3 stated that revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the Complainants as per the requests from Opposite Party No.1 Bank. As the loan was closed on 16.03.2019, it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw the request for Revenue Recovery issued to Opposite Party No.2 against the Complainant immediately on closure of the loan liability of the Complainants and to drop further proceedings. But, letter intimating closure of loan and withdrawal of further proceedings was issued by Opposite Party No.1 only on 05.08.2022.  It is evident that the undue delay in intimation of closure of loan and withdrawal of further proceedings from the part of Opposite Party No.1 has caused to initiate revenue recovery proceedings against the Complainant and therefore it has caused mental agony and loss of repudiation to the Complainants.  Here, the Opposite Party No.1 did not take the same care and vigilance in withdrawal of the revenue recovery proceedings against the Complainants as in the case of initiating it.  Hence, there has been deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Party No.1.  So, Point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party No.1.  There has been no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.2 and 3.

10. Point No.2:-   As Point No.1 is proved against Opposite Party No.1, they are liable to pay compensation and cost of the Complainants.  But the compensation claimed is seen highly exorbitant.  In our view, the Complainants are entitled get a compensation of Rs.30,000/-.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Party No.1 is directed to

1. Pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and
2. Pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand Only) towards cost of this complaint

The above amounts shall be paid to the Complainants within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26^th day of March 2024.

Date of Filing:-06.06.2022.

PRESIDENT(I/C)      : Sd/-

MEMBER                   : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainants:-

PW1.              K. C. Joy.                                                                   Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1            Sivadasan. M. S.                                                     Tahsildar.

Exhibits for the Complainants:-

A1.                  Copy of Certificate.                                                Dt:16.03.2019.

A2.                  Copy of Revenue Recovery Adalath Notice.

A3.                  Lawyer Notice and Postal Receipts.                  Dt:14.03.2022.

A4.                  Acknowledgment Card.

A5.                  Reply Notice.                                                           Dt:25.03.2022.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

B1.      Copy of Letter.                                                                   Dt:05.08.2022.      

PRESIDENT(I/C)      : Sd/-

MEMBER                   : Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                           CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-