IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of July, 2015
Filed on 30.03.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.102/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. R. Karunakaran Pillai The Manager, State Bank of Travancore
Madhava Nivas Pattanakkadu Branch
Kuruppankulangara P.O. Pattanakkadu P.O.
Cherthala Thekku Village Cherthala
Alappuzha (By Adv. P.S. Jyothish Kumar)
(By Adv. D. Deepak)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant has availed a gold loan for Rs.3 lakhs on 4.10.2011 under the agricultural scheme. The maximum period for the repayment of the loan amount under the scheme is one year from the date of disbursement. As per the scheme those who remitted the loan amount without default within the stipulated period is entitled to get 3% subsidy. Even though, the complainant remitted the amount without default within the period, his claim for subsidy repudiated by stating that the complainant remitted the amount after the period. Complainant’s wife also availed loan as per the said scheme and closed the loan and received the subsidy amount. Even though complainant complained about it to the opposite party there was no result. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The maximum period for the repayment of the loan amount under the scheme is one year from the date of disbursement. The last date for closing the loan was 3.10.2012. To the contrary complainant has closed the loan only on 4.10.2012. On the basis of the direction of the banking Ombudsman, opposite party has credited Rs.9,000/- into the SB account No.57042335163 of the complainant. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any further amount.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. Opposite party was examined as RW1.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that complainant had availed a gold loan for Rs.3 lakhs on 4.10.2011 in the agricultural scheme. According to the complainant he is entitled to get Rs.9,000/- as subsidy, but opposite party failed to pay the amount. But the opposite party stated that even though the complainant is not entitled to get the subsidy amount they credited Rs.9,000/- into the SB account No.57042335163 of the complainant on 17.5.2014. Complainant produced the statement of account for the period from 1.4.2011 to 1.10.2015 issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant and it marked as Ext.A8. While cross examining the RW1, he admitted that Ext.A8 was the joint account transaction statement in the name of the complainant and his wife. On verifying Ext.A8 we came to see that on 4.10.2011 an amount of Rs.3 lakhs each were credited into the joint account of the complainant and his wife. While cross examining the opposite party, he admitted that the subsidy of 3% will be available to the loan amount up to 3 lakhs. Ext.A8 shows that opposite party credited only Rs.9,000/- on 17.5.2014 as subsidy into the joint account of the complainant and his wife. Whether it is for the subsidy of Karunakaran Pillai or his wife is not clear from the Ext.A8 statement. At the same time it is clear that both persons closed the loan amount on 4.10.2012. Opposite party has no case that the complainant and his wife have not closed the loan on 4.10.2012. According to the opposite party they have credited the subsidy amount of Rs.9,000/- as per the direction of the Ombudsman. But it is not clear from the Ext.A8 statement that the opposite party credited the amount in the name of Karunakaran Pillai. Since Karunakaran Pillai and his wife entitled to get Rs.9,000/- each as subsidy amount, opposite party is liable to pay the subsidy to each of them. Opposite party ahs not produced any document to prove that they have already paid the subsidy amount of Rs.9,000/- to the complainant’s wife before 17.05.2014. From the foregoing discussions, we are of opinion that the complainant and his wife entitled to get the subsidy amount of Rs.9,000/-.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) the subsidy amount of Rs.3 lakhs, the gold loan amount of the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. Since the primary relief is granted, there is no order as to compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me an pronounced
in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member):
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - R. Karunakaran Pillai (Witness)
Ext.A1 - True copy of the letter dated 7.10.2013
Ext.A2 - True copy of the letter dated 8.10.2013
Ext.A3 - True copy of the letter dated 28.02.2014
Ext.A4 - True copy of the letter dated 14.03.2014
Ext.A5 - True copy of the passbook
Ext.A6 series - True copy of the gold loan receipts (3 Nos.) – Subject to objection
Ext.A7 - True copy of the letter dated 21.04.2014
Ext.A8 - Copy of the Statement of Account filed by the complainant
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - P.O. Mary (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
To
Senior Superintendent
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
