DATE OF FILING : 13.12.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.262/2010
Between
Complainants : 1. Bijumon T.M., S/o Mathai,
Thevarmadathil House,
Adimali P.O.,
Idukki District.
2. Bijumon P.B., S/o Balakrishnan,
Palakkathotti House,
Adimali P.O.,
Idukki District.
(Both by Naiju Raveendranath)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
SBT Adimali Branch,
Adimali P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Babichen V. George)
2. The Area/Unit Committee,
Kerala State Vyapari Vyavasayi Samithi,
Adimali, Reg. No. 72/89,
Adimali P.O.,
Idukki District.
3. C.V. Thampi,
Cheruparambil House,
Machiplavu,
(The Secretary, The Area/Unit Committee,
Kerala State Vyapari Vyavasayi Samithi,
Adimali, Reg. No. 72/89),
Adimali P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Emmanuel John)
ORDER
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainants 1 and 2 has filed this complaint on behalf of the consumers 1 to 25, who are conducting business at Adimali. The opposite parties jointly started a special loan scheme named “S.B.T. - VVS Traders Special loan banking scheme” and the petitioners 1 to 25 received loans from the same. The consumers 1 to 25 availed loans from the 1st opposite party through the 2nd and 3rd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party, the unit committee of the Merchants Association of Adimali and the Secretary is the 3rd opposite party. The complainant were paying the loan amount through the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. But the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties never repaid the amount, after receiving from the complainants, to the 1st opposite party. Eventhough the complainants requested for the statement of account, they never issued the same. The 1st opposite
(cont......2)
- 2 -
party started recovery proceedings against the complainants because of the non-payment, eventhough they were received from the complainants by the 2nd and 3rd opposite party. So this petition is filed for cancelling the attachment proceedings initiated by the direction of the 1st opposite party, to receive the balance amount in instalments and to direct the 1st opposite party to receive only the balance amount other than received by the 2nd and 3rd opposite party.
2. The 1st opposite party filed written version and statement of account. They never introduced any scheme in the name of 'S.B.T. VVS Traders Special', never received any application for the same. The VVS is an organisation formed by the Merchants Association and the 3rd opposite party is the secretary of the same. The 1st opposite party is not a party of the same. This petition is filed by the petitioners colluded with 3rd opposite party because they are the members of the Merchants Association, in order to avoid the payment of the loan. The 2nd opposite party introduced the loanees to the 1st opposite party. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were the representatives of the complainants and they are formed for the welfare of them. The 1st opposite party has no way connection to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. There is only interest and processing charge has been taken by the 1st opposite party for the same. The 2nd opposite party was also assured the repayment of the loan amount from the consumers because they are the union of the complainants. The 2nd opposite party had introduced the daily collection scheme and this opposite party is not liable to that. All the amount paid in the cash counter of the 1st opposite party has been counted in the loan account of the complainants. The bank is not liable for the amount which is paid to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and they are ready to give the statement of account to individual persons as per the application. So there is no deficiency in the part of the 1st opposite party.
3. As per the written version filed by the 3rd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party never received any amount from the complainant. The complaint is also not maintainable because all the complainants are separate in nature. There is no such S.B.T. - VVS Traders Special loan banking scheme exists as per the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties never introduced such a loan scheme and it is only a story of the complainants. There was a daily collection agent appointed by the 2nd opposite party and the daily collection amount were paid to the bank in monthly instalments. The complainants are also aware that if few monthly instalments are due, the loan becomes due. The details of the loan are also available from the bank. The 2nd opposite party arranged loans to the small scale business persons of Adimali by forming the Merchant Association there in the year 2005/06 and the loan amount was Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2 lakhs. The daily collections were also done by the 2nd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is not responsible for any of the statement of account of the 1st opposite party bank. The 3rd opposite party is not liable for any act of the 2nd
opposite party. The secretary of the Kerala State Vyapari Vyavasayi Samithi, Adimali unit is not the 3rd opposite party, but it is one P.N. Salimon, Chempothinkal, Adimali. That person and the collection agents are not the party in the suit. The 2nd opposite party conducted daily collection and paid to the bank and as per the committee conducted on 26.1.2006, the 2nd opposite party can collect the amount and keep it upto 2 months with him. The complainants are liable to repay the loan in 36 instalments and the 3rd opposite party is not liable to pay the same.
4. The 2nd opposite party is exparte.
5. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainants are entitled to?
(cont.....3)
- 3 -
6. No oral evidence adduced by both the parties.
7. The POINT :- Heard. As per the complainants 1 and 2, they are the representatives of the 25 consumers of S.B.T. VVS Special Traders loan banking scheme. It is also admitted by the complainant himself that 25 persons availed loans from the 1st opposite party and the amount of loan and repayment by each person is different. The loan amount became due and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties collected the amount from the complainants and it was paid to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party never issued a statement of account. As per the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party has no way connection to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are representatives of Merchant Association in which the complainants are also members. So this petition is filed in collusion with the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties in order to avoid the payment. The complainants never approached the opposite party bank for getting the statement of account. As per the 3rd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party was the collection agent of the loan and the 3rd opposite party is not responsible for the collection amount received by the 2nd opposite party and it is the duty of the complainants to enquire about the same. So we think that the loan availed by each complainant are different and due amount for each complainant are also different. Eventhough all the 25 persons availed loan from the 1st opposite party, the loan amount, due amount, date of receiving the loan amount and date of payment of loan are different. So the cause of action is different in 25 applicants and so the petition is not at all maintainable because the subject matter of the case is different on behalf of each petitioner. Moreover the matter concerned is not a consumer complaint because the allegation is that the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties cheated the complainants after receiving repayment of the amount from them. It is absolutely criminal in nature and not comes under the provisions of the complaint as per the Consumers Protection Act,1986.
Hence the petition is not maintainable and dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of January, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Nil.
