IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 31st day of May, 2011
Filed on 18.15.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.111/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.V.K.Purushothaman, 1. The Manager, Primary Co-operative
S/o Kochukunju, Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.,
Kurathara Veed, No.189, Chengannoor Branch.
Enakkad Village,
Chengannur. 2. The Secretary, Primary Co-operative
(By Adv.Binny Joseph) Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.,
Thiruvalla.
(By Adv.Jaison John)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case is as follows: - The complainant availed loan from the opposite parties bearing Loan No. MI 15/94-95, CDS 16/94-95, NF 46/94-95, on mortgaging his property. Consequent to unforeseen reasons he was forced to render default in repayments of the said loan. Meanwhile, the opposite parties put out the defaulted loan amount in the prominent daily 'Malayala Manorama'. Soon, the complainant remitted a total amount of Rs.1,45,000/-(Rupees one lac forty five thousand only) by diverse occasions. For the balance amount of Rs.4,030/-(Rupees four thousand and thirty only), the complainant submitted an application before the sale officer to adjust the same with his share in the opposite party bank. There after, the complainant repeatedly visited the opposite parties to close his loan account and to return the relevant documents he mortgaged with the opposite party. The complainant even caused to send legal notice, and filed a petition before the Legal Service Authority. Strangely still, the opposite party did not make it a point to give back the complainant's documents. The service of the opposite party is deficient. The complainant sustained huge monetary and mental woes. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent the opposite parties turned up, and filed version. The opposite parties contend that the complaint is unsustainable. The complainant is not a consumer. The complainant availed loan amount of Rs.1,48,180/-(Rupees one lac forty eight thousand one hundred and eighty only) from the opposite party vide applications bearing No. MI 15/94-95, DS 10/94-95, CDS 16/94-95, NF 46/94-95 from the opposite party. The opposite party on 11th November 2002 made paper publication as to the arrears of the loan amount. Despite this, the complainant ignored to effect repayments. Now, an amount of Rs.2,05,314.17 /-(Rupees two lacs five thousand three hundred fourteen and seventy paisa only) is due to the opposite parties as on 14th July 2010. The opposite party is unable to release the documents without paying off of the entire loan amount. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost, the opposite parties assert.
2. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Exbts. Al to A4 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbts. B1 to B8 were marked.
3. Taking into account the contentions of both the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant is liable to pay any amount to the opposite parties?
(b) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
4. The complainant, concededly, availed loan from the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that, the complainant cleared off the entire loan amount. Strangely yet, the opposite parties are reluctant to hand down the title deed and other documents, the complainant entrusted with the opposite parties. We carefully went through the materials put on record by the parties. The complainant has availed the service of the opposite party on arranging loan from them. At the first blush itself, the allegation of the complainant constitutes deficiency of service. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the complainant is a consumer, and the complaint filed by him before this Forum is maintainable.
5. Coming down to the crux of the contentions, the immediate short question to be addressed is that whether the complainant paid off the entire loan amount the complainant availed from the opposite parties. Keeping in mind the said core issue, we carefully perused the pleadings, submissions and documents available on record. Going by Exbt. A4 paper publication, it seems that the total amount due by the complainant to the opposite parties is Rs.1,49,030/-(Rupees one lac forty nine thousand and thirty only). Admittedly, the complainant has paid off an amount of Rs.l,45,000/-(Rupees one lac forty five thousand only) to the opposite parties. It is also not denied or disputed that the complainant has filed an application seeking to adjust the balance amount of Rs.4,030/-(Rupees four thousand and thirty only), with his share in the opposite party bank. If that be so, no doubt, the complainant must have cleared off the entire debt. Interestingly, the opposite parties version is that the complainant availed loan from four schemes viz. non-farming, minor irrigation, coconut development and diary scheme of the opposite parties. When paper publication was made, the opposite parties erroneously projected the default amount as Rs.1,49,030/-(Rupees one lac forty nine thousand and thirty only). Inadvertently, the opposite parties omitted to include loan amount availed by the complainant under the diary scheme. According to the opposite party, though the complainant remitted the published defaulted amount of Rs.1,49,030/-(Rupees one lac forty nine thousand and thirty only), the same was made use of to close the diary scheme loan and the balance amount was adjusted in the other three loans. The complainant thereafter did not close the entire loan, and hence the opposite parties are not liable to give back his documents he deposited with them, the counsel for the opposite parties fervently argues. Indisputably, the projected amount defaulted in three schemes as published in the daily has been paid off by the complainant. The opposite parties according to their whims and fancy misused the said amount to close another loan. It has not come out in evidence that the opposite parties have sought the consent of the complainant, or the least bit, impressed upon him as to the remitted amount being used to clear off another loan. We are of the strong view that if an unintentional omission came about on the part of the opposite parties, the opposite parties could have published the omitted loan scheme further. Instead, the amount the complainant remitted to close a particular loan published in 'Malayala Manorama' daily has been misused by the opposite parties according to their option. What has been arbitrarily done by opposite parties is gross negligence, which straight away amount to deficiency of service. It is crucial to notice that the opposite parties, thereafter, never made it a point to rectify its mistake by another publication or anything else. Needless to say, the complainant has paid off the entire amount of Rs.1,49,030/-(Rupees one lac forty nine thousand and thirty only), the opposite parties demanded through the publication in 'Malayala Manorama' daily. In the wake of the aforesaid circumstance, we hold that the opposite parties are liable to give the complainant the title deed and the other relevant documents in question back. Similarly, we are of the view that the opposite parties are disentitled to recover any additional amount from the complainant.
In view of the facts and circumstance of the instant case, the opposite parties are directed to give back the title deed procured from the complainant for the purpose of the material loan in the instant case. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant. . The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30days of date of the receipt of this order.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - P.K.Purushothaman (Witness)
Ext. A1 series - The Receipts (8 Nos.)
Ext. A2 - The Notice dated, 25.03.2006
Ext. A3 - The application before the Agricultural Development Bank Sale Officer
dated, 20.06.2005
Ext. A4 - The paper publication in the Malayala Manorama daily dated, 11.11.2002
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sheela K Panoose (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The copy of the complaint from the Joint Registrar, Pathanamthitta dated,
22.11.2004
Ext. B2 - The details of Over dues dated, 25.04.2011
Ext. B3 series - The Loan Receipt (10 Nos.)
Ext. B4 - The Valuation Certificate dated, 28.02.1995
Ext. B5 - The Payment Receipt dated, 30.03.1996
Ext. B6 - The copy of the Loan Ledger
Ext. B7 series - The copy of the Loan Ledger (4 sheets)
Ext. B8 - The copy application in the Stamp Paper
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
