Date of filing : 23-10-2009 Date of order : 30-09-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 230/09 Dated this, the 30th day of September 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER K.T. Janardhanan, S/o. Thankappan, R/at Sreeragam, } Complainant Kanhangad, Kallanchira, Kanhangad. (Adv. Padmanabhan, Hosdurg) Senior Manager, } Opposite party Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd, Kannur Branch. (Adv. K.Gopalakrishnan, Kannur) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Case of the complainant in brief is that opposite party is harassing by issuing demand notices repeatedly to him and to his guarantor even after closing the loan he availed from opposite party. According to him due to the repeated serving of demand notices to his guarantor who is a fellow-worker, not only she, but other fellow employees also lost faith on him causing him much mental agony and sufferings. According to the complainant, he availed a loan of `1,00,000/- on 20-09-2000 at 14% interest per annum. The said amount ought have been closed in 60 months with `2,333/- as EMI and he paid `1,41,438/- instead of the stipulated amount ``1,39,800/-. Again he was directed to pay `4,587/- to close the loan. Accordingly he paid that amount on 9-10-06. Even after that he was served with a notice dated 7-10-06 as per which he directed to pay `5380/- on or before 30-09-06. A copy of the same is sent to his guarantor also. Again on 9-7-08 he received another notice showing the due as `2,396/-. Again on 15-06-09 he received another notice claiming `2,149/- with a copy to his guarantor. Against this notice complainant sent a detailed reply. Apart from that on 22-7-09 opposite party sent him a statement of account as per that the balance is shown is only `1001/-. Without any basis and prompt, correct accounting opposite party is issuing demand notices. Therefore the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to produce the statement of account evidencing the payment and to pay a compensation of `50,000/- for harassing him by issuing demand notices to him and to his guarantor unnecessarily. 2. According to opposite party complainant and his guarantor has executed an agreement at the time of availing the loan. As per the agreement the complainant had to repay the loan amount in 60 EMI’s of `2330/- each. The complainant agreed to pay 14% interest per annum and such other rate the Bank may time to time specify by notice in writing calculated on the EMI. The complainant also agreed to pay penal interest @ 3% for the due instalments. The opposite party has the right to collect processing fee or other charges. According to the rates prescribed from time to time. The complainant has not regularly discharged the loan repayment and due to his default the opposite party levied penal interest and issued notices to the complainant and the co-obligant to demanding the repayment of the balance amount. `1,39,800/- was the actual amount to be paid to the opposite party if the complainant was regular in loan repayment but due to his default in paying the EMI’s in due time he paid `1,41,438/- including penal interest. The averment that even after discharging the loan amount the opposite party has demanded to pay `4587 is not correct. The complainant had not discharged the full loan amount on or before 20-09-2005. Prior to that on 18-08-05 the opposite party issued balance statement to the complainant stating that the amount due is `3982/-. But the complainant did not discharge it. Thereafter the opposite party informed the complainant on 20-09-2006 requesting the complainant to avail the facility to clear the loan under one time settlement scheme as on or before 30-09-2006 on payment of `4587. But the complainant had not utilized that opportunity and he has paid the said amount after closing the one time settlement scheme. So that amount could not be adjusted as full and final settlement of the accounts since the period for one time settlement was over by 30-09-2006. So the opposite party has credited the amount in the loan account. Thereafter the opposite party requested him to close the loan amount. After that the complainant had not paid the balance amount to the opposite party. On 22-7-2009 the balance was `1001 and the same has been increasing as a live account. The process of issuing notice to the parties ie. to the borrower and co-obligant are the normal procedures adopted in the banking industry for that the complainant cannot blame the opposite party. The averments that the complainant suffered mental financial and physical difficulties is not correct and the co-workers lost faith on the complainant and as a result he suffered mental depression etc is also not correct. The complainant is not entitled for any damages. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his claim. Exts A1 to A5 marked. On the side of opposite party Exts B1 to B3 marked. Both sides heard. Documents produced. The grievance of the complainant is that his co-workers lost faith on him since opposite party issued demand notices to his co-obligent towards a loan which is already closed and he made his co-obligant to believe that it is settled on 9-10-06 after remitting `4,587/- as demanded by opposite party. According to complainant as per Ext.B2 letter dt.20-09-2006 towards the full and final settlement of his account he enquired in the office of opposite party directly and over phone but they did not give him any accurate reply but told him that they will do the needful to close the account. 4. It is pertinent to note that after his remittance of `4587/- on 9-10-06 the opposite party has not informed anything till 9-7-08 and only on 9-7-08 they issued Ext.A3 demanding `2396/- towards instalment with future interest from 1-7-2008. Where were the opposite party and what was they doing from 9-10-06 to 9-7-08 without claiming the arrears? If this is the kind of lethargic service they are rendering definitely we have to meddle with improve their work culture. 5. Again it is interesting to note that As per Ext.A4 dated 01-06-2009 the demand of opposite party is diminished `2,149/- and as per Ext.A5 their demand further reduced to `1001/-. There is absolutely no explanation forth coming from the side of opposite party for this diminutions in the demand and this would itself makes it manifest that opposite party have no consistent demands and it further throws light to their pitiable keeping of accounts. In Ext.A5 the principal amount due is shown as `52/- as on 14-10-06. Can we believe that a reasonable prudent man who settled all his account finally by remitting `4,587/- as demanded by opposite party would keep a paltry sum of `52/- as balance if he was asked to remit the amount when he directly and over phone contacted subsequently . 6. Now a days to get a third party as a co-obligant to a loan is quite difficult and when a co-worker stood as co-obligant who made to believe that the account is closed and who in turn receives a notice of demand it will definitely create an embarrassing atmosphere. Therefore the grievance of the complainant has got a sound footing and hence the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the mental agony he suffered. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority V Balbirsing reported in 1986-2004 CONSUMER 8287 (NS) has held that compensation may extend to physical mental or even emotional sufferings, insult injury or loss. Further in the case of Charansingh V Heaing Touch Hospital case reported in 1986-2004 CONSUMER 7350(NS) it was held that punitive compensation has to be awarded not only to recompense the aggrieved but also to make a qualitative change in the mind of service provider. We think this is a case to award such a compensation. Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of `5,000/- towards the hardships & mental agony suffered by the complainant together with a cost of `1,000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Dt. 09-10-06 Photocopy of DD an amount of 4,587/- A2.7-10-06 Notice issued by OP to complainant. A3.09-07-08 letter sent OP to complainant. A4.15-06-2009 copy of registered letter issued by OP to complainant. A5. 22-7-09 photocopy of ledger extract B1.Photocopy of agreement B2.20-09-06 photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant. B3.Photocopy of Samridhi Loan Ledger. PW1. Janardhanan.K.T. MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ | 
