R.Vijayakumar, Member
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties for the refund of the excess amount with interest collected from the complainant for return LIC Insurance Policy bearing no.780230241 for quashing demand notice served to the complainant dated :15/09/07 and for compensation along with cost.
The complainant’s case is that even though she had remitted the loan amount along with interest and had paid excess amount Rs,5793/- the opposite party failed to return LIC Insurance Policy document. The opposite party had also
(2)
served a notice dated:15/02/2012 to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs.4250/- after no due certificate was issued.
The complainant fails to remit the installments of the education loan for Rs.15,000/- which was availed from the opposite party. RR proceedings were initiated by the opposite party and accordingly the complainant made repayment of Rs.36,777/- in installments through Revenue authority. In fact, the complainant is liable to remit only Rs.30,984/- and the opposite party is liable to return the excess amount along with interest . The complainant had produced her LIC Insurance Certificate as a security of the said loan. This policy document also was not returned. In spite of repeated demands, the opposite party failed to heed with the demands of the complainant. On 08/03/07 the opposite party had issued no due certificate to the complainant. Then on 15/09/07 the opposite party had served a notice to the complainant demanding Rs.4250/-. There is clear deficiency of the service from the part of opposite party and the complainant sustained mental agony, loss and damages. Hence she filed the complaint for getting reliefs.
The opposite party’s contention is that the averment that the complainant had paid excess amount of Rs.5793/- and the opposite party is bound to return the excess amount with interest from 1988/- is absolutely false. The complainant was a chronic defaulter. Though the complainant had completed Education and secured employment, she failed to repay the loan amount. The opposite party constrained to initiate RR proceedings. The RR authorities recovered the loan amount in installments. An amount of Rs.4250/- exclusive of interest from 1/10/99 was outstanding against the complainant. On 08/03/07 the complainant approached the opposite party and requested for settlement of Account. The OP had extended maximum feasible co-operation and decided to waive the balance amount. Since RR proceedings were pending a no due certificate was issued considering
(3)
the request of the complainant. The waiver of outstanding amount and closure of account requires further formalities. On 15/09/07 when the bank issued notice to the defaulters a notice was issued to the complainant also by mistake. On getting information the opposite party explained the circumstances and assured that the opposite party had no more claim against the complainant. The opposite party is not keeping the original LIC Policy as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has no cause of action and there is no deficiency from the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The points that would arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
- Compensation and cost.
From the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined. Exts.P1 to P8 marked.
From the side of opposite parties DW1 examined. Exts.D1 and D2 marked.
Heard both sides.
Points (1) and (2)
Admittedly the complainant availed Education loan for an amount of Rs.15, 000/- from the opposite party and the complainant defaulted in repayment. Thus RR proceedings initiated by the opposite party. The complainant had availed installments facility and subsequent payments were made through RR authorities.
According to the complainant an excess amount of Rs.5793/- was collected from her. Even though she was liable to pay Rs.30,984/- she had remitted Rs.36,777/-.
(4)
According to the opposite parties an amount of Rs.4250/- exclusive of interest from 01/10/99 was outstanding and as per repeated requests of the complainant to settle the loan account the opposite party bank took a lenient attitude, extended maximum co-operation and waived that amount. Even though there are certain formalities for the final approval of the waiver the opposite party had issued no due certificate on 08/03/07 considering the request of the complainant.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that no receipt was issued by the RR authorities for the payment of Rs.3000/- on 11/10/99 and this fact was not denied by the opposite party. Total receipts amounts to Rs,33,683/- and including the payment of Rs.3000/-on 11/10/97, the total amount remitted comes to Rs.36,683/-. The complainant is liable to pay only Rs.30,984/-. Thus the additional amount of Rs.5793/- was collected by the Bank.
The argument of non-issuance of receipt for Rs.3000/- cannot be admitted merely on the ground that no contention regarding this matter was raised by the opposite parties. The complainant herself had admitted that the payments were made through RR authorities. The opposite party in this case has no authority to say whether the said payment of Rs.3000/- was made or not by the complainant. This opposite party is liable only to credit the amount which they had received from the RR authorities in favour of the complainant. The complainant has no case that she had remitted the amount in the opposite party bank. If the amount of Rs.3000/- was collected by the revenue authorities and failed to pay the amount in the opposite party bank the RR authorities are only liable for the deficiency. The RR
authorities are not parties in this dispute. The RR authorities were not examined to prove that they had collected Rs.3000/- without issuing receipt.
(5)
Further allegation of the complainant is that after the closure of loan account and issuance of no due certificate the opposite party had sent a notice dtd : 15/09/07 stating that arrears of Rs.4250/- was pending as on 24/01/07 itself . The complainant sent a letter to the opposite party’s bank showing all the facts. No further steps were initiated by opposite party. An endorsement was made in the previous notice dated:18/11/06 by opposite parties. The notice dated:15/09/07 was issued only with an intention to harass the complainant. This act was done by the opposite party when the complainant had demanded refund of excess amount of Rs.4250/- and return of the Insurance Policy Certificate. The opposite party also had admitted the issuance of notice dated: 15/09/2007.
It is true that the opposite party had admitted the issuance of notice dated: 15/09/07 long after the issuance of the no due certificate. On receipt of the information, the opposite party had clarified and explained the circumstances on which the notice was happened to be issued. The opposite party assured that the complainant’s loan was treated as closed with effect from 08/03/07.It is also pertinent to note here that no further action was taken against the complainant and opposite party had withdrawn their claims. The opposite party had extended maximum co-operation for closing the loan account. The above said circumstances leads to the inferance that the notice dated: 15/09/07 was sent to the complainant only by mistake and opposite party had not intended to harass the complainant or purposefully taken any coercive steps against the complainant.
It is further alleged by the complainant that the original Insurance policy certificate was collected and kept under opposite party’s custody as security for the loan amount. The complainant produced Ext.P4, Premium payment receipt of LIC in the name of the complainant.
In our opinion, Ext.P4 is an insufficient document to prove that the Bank had received the policy document as the security for the loan amount.
(6)
It is seen in Ext.D1, the certified copy of loan account Register it is noted as security : (A) primary personal guarantee . 1.Bhaskara Pillai 2. Ramachandran Nair and Padmakshi Amma (Father and mother). It is also recorded in the column of guarantor (s) that Mortgage of Landed (Building) value Rs.75,000/-. There is no mention regarding the security of an Insurance policy document and complainant has no case that the property was pledged as a security for the loan and no demand for return of any documents related to Land or Building . It is also unbelievable that the Bank had collected Insurance Policy certificate as a guarantee for Education loan.
The contention of opposite party is that the loan amount was due from 24/01/86. RR proceeding initiated for recovery of Rs.31,981/- exclusive of interest from 1996 onwards. The amount collected by RR authorities were forwarded to the bank after adjusting 5% government commission Ext.D1 shows that Rs.4250/- was outstanding as on 30/09/99 and there after no payment was made by the complainant. The amount received was properly accounted in the loan account.
The complainant has not produced any material to show that he had remitted any amount after 30/09/99. Ext.D1 and D2 were properly proved by DW1. Nothing was brought out in cross-exam to discard the evidence adduced by the opposite party .As per Ext.D1 Rs.4250/- was outstanding in the account of the complainant as on 30/09/99. From these records it is obvious that the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs.5793/- is false. The complainant fails to prove her case.
The opposite party strongly contended that there is lack of bonafides in the complaint. The complainant never appeared before the Forum and no satisfactory explanation is furnished for her non appearance.
(7)
The loan was availed by the complainant in the year 1986 during the course of her higher studies. The period of repayment was specifically mentioned in Ext.D1 as “ 60 monthly installments after completion of studies or getting employment”. The fact that the complainant is a Doctor by profession and working at Chennai was not denied by the complainant. She had not remitted the loan amount after the completion of her studies or even after getting employment. No amount was remitted by the complainant till 1996. Even after the bank had initiated RR proceedings the complainant failed to remit the full loan amount along with interest Rs.31981/-. She had obtained installment facility Rs.4250/- was outstanding due as per Ext.D1 and no payment was made after 30/09/99. The complainant could finally settle the loan account and secure a no due certificate only on 08/03/07 after waiving the outstanding amount and interest upon her request.
From these facts it is obvious that the complainant, a practicing Doctor could settle the education loan account for Rs.15,000/- along with interest, only after the lapse of 21 years.
Considering the aforementioned circumstances we are of the opinion that the opposite party bank cannot be held guilty for any deficiency in service from their part.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 27th day of February 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari :Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
(8)
INDEX
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - G.Ramachandran Nair
List of documents for the complainant
P1 - R.R certificated dated: 14/08/96
P2 - Demand notice dated:18/11/06
P3 - Courier receipt dated:24/01/07
P4 - Insurance Policy amount remittance certificate
P5 - Receipts of remittance of RR amount
P6 - Demand notice dated:15/09/07
P7 - Loan closure certificate dated: 08/03/07
P8 - Power of Attorney
List of witness for the opposite party
DW1 - R.Sebastian
List of documents for the opposite party
D1 - Certified copy of loan account
D2 - Protested bill register
