Karnataka

Kolar

CC/149/2023

Sri.G.N.Rahamathulla - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank - Opp.Party(s)

A.Kiran Kumar

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing:13/12/2023

Date of Order:30/04/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:30^th DAY OF APRIL 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:149/2023

 

Sri. G.N. Rahamathulla,

S/o. Nanesab,

Aged about 45 years,

R/of No. SHC 31,

DAR Quarters,

M.B. Road,

Kolar.

(Rep. by A. Kiran Kumar, Advocate)                  ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

1) The Manager

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank,

Keelukote Branch,

Opp. LIC Office,

Dr. Rajkumar Raod,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri. S. Nandeesh, Advocate)

 

2) Smt. Narayanamma,

W/o Late. R.M. Venkateshappa,

Aged about 52 years,

R/at Kuruarapete,

Kolar.

(Rep. In-Person)                                               ……Opposite Parties.                                                                  

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the OP.No.1 & 2 and praying for direction to OP.No.1 to mention the clearance certificate in their record as well as informed the same to the CIBIL authorities with regard to the credit information and direction to the OP.No.2 to clear the balance if any due payable to OP.NO.1 and to grant compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in the interest of justice and equity.

 

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the friend of the complainant by name R.M Venkateshappa was borrowed the loan from the OP Bank vide account No.69415207001404 and the complainant stood as guarantor to the said loan amount.  It is stated that, the borrower of the loan was repaying the loan amount through EMIs deducting from his salaries.  It is stated that, on 04/07/2017 the borrower of the loan was died and the remaining loan amount was not cleared and total balance of loan amount is due for Rs.1,10,000/-.  It is stated that, OP.No.1 Bank got issued the legal notice for recovery of the amount and thereon, complainant under One Time Settlement Scheme clear the loan amount.  Further OP.No1 issued clearance certificate dated 14/07/2018 to the complainant.  The OP.No.2 is the wife of late R.M. Venkateshappa (Borrower) though she got sufficient salary income but she also turned hostile.  It is stated that, complainant with an intention to borrow Educational Loan to his sons at SBI Kolar Branch, but the Bank has issued CIBIL (Consolidated consumer credit report) is very poor, for the reflecting the same or else OP.No.1 Bank.  It is stated that, due to consolidated Consumer Credit Report it discloses that, till reflecting balance pending in the OP.No1 Bank.  It is also submitted that, though complainant requested OP.No.1 Bank several times but the OP.No.1 Bank not taken any steps to the said request and hence alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and filed this complaint.

 

 

3. On issuance of notice, OP.No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its version but the OP.No.2 appeared before the Lokadalat when the matter is not settled and directed the OP.No.2 who being party in person to file her version before the regular course of hearing by notifying the date but OP.No.2 did not choose to file her version.  

 

4. In the version of the OP.No.1 it is admitted that, the friend of the complainant by name R.M Venkateshappa, who borrowed the loan amount from the OP Bank and the complainant stood as guarantor to the said loan amount.  It is also admitted as true and correct that, the outstanding due of Rs.1,10,000/- and the borrower was died on 04/07/2017. After the death of the borrower under the OTS scheme and the complainant cleared the loan amount, but the wife of the complainant i.e OP.No.2 though having sufficient income not cleared the loan amount borrowed by her husband.

 

5. It is contended that, it is not in the knowledge of the OP.No.1 Bank that, the complainant was approached the SBI Bank in order to obtain loan for the purpose of education of his son.  Further denied the fact that, complainant was approached many times and the OP Bank for several times, but they have not properly answered and committed deficiency in service.  All these facts denied as false and incorrect and contended that, the fact is nothing but the story of the complainant in order to bring the complaint.  It is contended that, OP.No.1 Bank is not responsible for rising of CIBIL of the complainant and hence contended that, complaint is not maintainable. 

 

6. Further, it is contended that, OP.No.1 filed the suit against the original borrower and the guarantor (complainant) before the Civil Judge at Kolar bearing O.S.No.27/2018 finally it was ended in OTS settlement for the total loan liability of Rs.2,22,300/-and it was settled by the OP.No.2 under OTS for Rs.1,10,000/-.  Hence contended that, OP.No.1 is not liable for the relief claimed by the complainant.  Finally the above said grounds OP.No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

7. In order to prove the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence.

 

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.1 Bank?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What Order?

 

We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the evidence placed on record.

Our answers to the above points as under:

Point No. (1) & (2):-   In the Negative. 

Point No. (3):-            As per the final orders

                                 for the following.

 

 

 

 

                             REASONS

9. Point No.(1) & (2):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake brevity these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

10. On perusing the pleadings of te parties it is not in dispute that, the friend of the complainant and the husband of the OP.No.2 was borrowed the loan amount from the OP.No.1 Bank and for which complainant stood as guarantor.  That the complainant was died on 04/07/2017 and due to non-paying the loan amount OP.No.1 Bank filed the suit against the complainant before the Hon’ble Civil Judge Kolar.  It is also not in dispute that, during the course of original suit proceedings bearing O.S.No.27/2018 and the complainant under the OTS scheme paid Rs.1,10,000/- and cleared the loan.  Whereas, the complainant did not whisper anything about the filing of the Original Suit against the complainant for recovery of the due amount and ultimately under the OTS Scheme though due amount is Rs.2,22,300/ and it was settled by the OP.No.2 under OTS for Rs.1,10,000/- hence it is the policy matter of the Bank whenever the amount is settled under the OTS scheme entire loan will not be cleared and hence his CIBIL score obviously reflected in his account.  When the complainant as a guarantor cleared the loan of the husband of the OP.No.2 who is the borrower and when the OP.No.2 is having good salary and other sources of income, the complainant is at liberty to recover the amount from her and cleared the CIBIL score, but the complainant did not made any effort to recover it from the OP.No.2.  It is noteworthy that, OTS scheme is the policy of the Banking internal matter and this Commission has no jurisdiction to direct the Bank to issue such clearance certificate claimed by the complainant.  On foregoing reasons discussed above that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.1 Bank and hence complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(1) & (2) in the Negative.

 

11. Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1) to (2) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

 

6698606.  

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF APRIL 2024)

 

 

        MEMBER                              PRESIDENT