CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of December, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 15/12/2014
CC /193/2014
Bindu.T.K, : Complainant
W/o.Sivadas, Kalathil House,
Neerkalamkode, Pothundy,
Nenmara, Palakkad.
(By Adv.P.Sreeprakash)
Vs
1. The Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Nenmara Branch,
Nenmara, Palakkad.
(By Adv.K.Gopalan)
2. The Village Officer, : Opposite parties
Vallangi Group,
Vallangi, Nenmara, Palakkad.
(Sri.Jayan C Thomas Additional Govt.Pleader II)
3. State rep.by The District Collector,
Palakkad.
(Sri.Jayan C Thomas Additional Govt.Pleader II)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complainant was running a fruit processing unit by name SSP Industries, Neerkalamkode, Pothundy. 1st opposite party sanctioned loan to the complainant for this purpose. Complainant is earning her livelihood from the income generated from this unit. Complainant repaid in certain installments. Thereafter some installments were defaulted, 1st opposite party initiated legal action by filing a suit as O.S.173/2013 before the Sub Court, Palakkad for realization of amount. Total amount sought to be recovered was Rs.2,34,658/-. After the institution of the suit the 1st opposite party issued a letter to the complainant stating that there is a onetime settlement facility available to the customers. It is also stated that there is a liability to the tune of Rs.2,65,554.53 as per the books on account of the bank. It was also made clear that on payment of sum of Rs.1,37,292/- the total liability can be closed under the onetime settlement facility. The time stipulated by the bank to avail this facility was up to 25/03/2014. On 22/03/2014, i.e. 3 days prior to the time stipulated complainant remitted Rs.1,38,000/- before the 1st opposite party. Thereafter on 25/10/2014, the 2nd opposite party issued a notice for Revenue Recovery for a sum of Rs.1,63,997/-. Hence the 1st opposite party after collecting the entire settlement amount has not closed to the account, kept and maintained the same as a live account calculated interest and penal interest and ultimately issued direction to the 2nd opposite party to recover the amount through Revenue Recovery Proceedings which will amount to clear deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complainant had approached before the Forum for which she is entitled to get compensation. The complainant had confined her claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. 1st opposite party entered appearance and 2nd opposite party was called and set exparte. 1st opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed version stating the following contentions. 1st opposite party admits that they had filed a suit before the Sub Court, Palakkad as O.S.173/13 for realization of amount and subsequently the matter was settled between the complainant and the 1st opposite party is correct, but the averment in the petition that the Revenue Recovery Proceedings have been initiated against the complainant for the same liability and that due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant suffered loss and damage to the tune of Rs.1 lakh was denied by them. According to the 1st opposite party the complainant has availed 2 loans on 12/03/2010 from the 1st opposite party, that the complainant has availed the loan to the tune of Rs.2,39,400/- on 12/03/2010 through the loan account number 339705010000166. Likewise the complainant has availed another loan to the tune of Rs.2,35,600/- on 12/03/2010 through the loan account number 339706110200030. Both loan accounts turned into NPA on 30/06/2011. The 1st opposite party bank filed a suit as O.S.173/2013 before the Sub Court, Palakkad for realization of defaulted loan amount in respect of the loan account number 339706110200030. Pursuant to that the matter was settled through one time settlement facility available to the customers and the dues inrespect for the above said loan account stand closed on 22/03/2014. The 1st opposite party further submits that amount due from the complainant inrespect of loan account number 339705010000166 outstanding amount due as on 28/02/2015 is Rs.1,36,677/- is not realized so far and against that liability the opposite parties 1-3 have initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings. The above said Revenue Recovery Proceedings is maintainable in law. The complainant has misconceived the above stated facts and filed the complaint on erroneous grounds and willfully suppressed the material facts that she has availed 2 loans from the 1st opposite party’s bank. The 1st opposite party is maintaining the entire loan account and details of remittance in the books of accounts kept under the due course. There is no ground for the complainant for claiming damages the Revenue Recovery Proceedings are initiated against the complainant for the outstanding dues in the loan account number 339705010000166 is maintainable and moreover the complaint is hit by the statutory bar u/s 72(2) of KRR Act. Hence the above complaint has to be dismissed.
Opposite parties 2 and 3 filed application as IA 91/15 to set aside the exparte order. Since no counter was filed by the complainant. Petition was allowed. But opposite parties 2 and 3 had not filed any version. Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Opposite party had filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A5 was marked from the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 was marked from the part of the opposite party. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite
Parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
ISSUES
We have perused the documents produced before the Forum. It is obvious from Ext.A3 that the complainant had paid Rs.1,38,000/- to the 1st opposite party by way of one time settlement on 22/03/2014. From Ext.A4 it can be seen that Revenue Recovery Proceedings are initiated against the complainant for the outstanding dues. According to the 1st opposite party the complainant had availed 2 loans on the same day for different amount and as per Ext.B1 it is evident that inrespect of loan account number 339705010000166, the outstanding amount due to the complainant as on February 2015 is Rs.1,34,060/-. The amount is not realised so far and as against that liability the opposite party 1-3 have initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings. Hence we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
In the light of the above discussions we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint has dismissed without costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of December, 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of application for EDP Training under (PMEGP) dtd.04/12/2009
Ext.A2 - Original letter dtd.3/2/2014 issued by the UBI to complainant
Ext.A3 - Copy of cash receipt Rs.1,38,000/- dtd.22/03/2014
Ext.A4 - R.R.Notice dated 25/10/2014 (Original)
Ext.A5 – Copy of the letter dated.04/11/2013
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Copy of Statement of account for the period from 30/06/2011 to 29/01/2015 Account No. 339705010000166
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed.
