CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 17th day of October 2014
PRESENT: SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SHINY. P.R, MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 18/09/2014
CC /143 / 2014
K.A.Kuttappan, S/o.K.Andi,
Sakthi Farm, Vallikkode,
Palakkad District. : Complainant
(By Adv.A.V.Ravi)
Vs
The Manager, : Opposite party
M/s.Canara Bank,
Sree Padma Auditorium,
Nedungadees Commercial Complex,
Head Post Office Road,
Sultanpet, Palakkad-678 001.
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:
Complainant for starting an agro based mushroom unit approved by National Horticulture Board and Kerala Agricultural Department with a project cost of Rs.21.94 lakhs availed an agricultural loan of Rs.14,32,000/- from opposite party on 08/11/2000. Two items of property was offered as guarantee. National Horticulture Board has granted a subsidy of Rs.4,10,000/- & Agricultural Department of Kerala has sanctioned subsidy to the tune of Rs.7,40,000/-. There was a specific direction to opposite party not to charge any interest on the subsidy amount and same may be adjusted to principal amount. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has not credited the aforesaid subsidy amount to the complainant’s loan account and also opposite party has charged interest on the entire principal amount without deducting the subsidy. Hence complainant suffered monetary loss. Further opposite party has charged highly exorbitant interest. Complainant was forced to approach Debit Recovery Tribunal as opposite party has demanded an exorbitant amount. Honourable Debit Recovery Tribunal as per order in S.A.No.433/2010 has observed that there was gross violation of the principles of statute from the side of opposite party and a final order was passed on 17/1/2014, where in opposite party was directed to recast the statement of accounts and pay cost to complainant. Opposite party so far has not complied the order. Hence the present complaint filed claiming compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Complaint posted for hearing on admission. Heard complaint.
As per the complaint agricultural loan was issued to the complainant in the year 2000. The grievance of the complainant regarding charging of interest on the subsidy amount and non crediting of subsidy to complainant’s loan account etc was known to the complainant as early as in the year 2000 itself or after obtaining the subsidy. The date of sanction of subsidy is no where mentioned in the complaint. The stand of the complainant that the cause of action starts on 17/01/2014, the date on which Hon’ble Debit Recovery Tribunal passed the order is not correct. The proceedings before the Debit Recovery Tribunal is no bar for filing a consumer complaint for deficiency in service.
As per Sec.24 A of consumer protection Act complaint has to be filed with 2 years from the date of cause of action. Hence the complaint filed after 13 years is definitely barred by limitation .
Hence without going in to the merits of the case, we dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of October 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
