DATE OF FILING : 09.06.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.120/2010

Between

Complainant : M.S.Swaminadhan,

Kavalammackal House,

Muttom P.O,

Edappalli,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

Federal Bank Limited,

Muttom Branch,

Muttom P.O,

Idukki District. (By Adv: Sibi Thomas)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

On 8.09.2005, the complainant availed two loans from the opposite party bank in the name of his daughter Aswathi.K.Gopinath for her studies in Bsc Nursing and in the name of his daughter Akhila.K.Gopinath for General Nursing, with amounts Rs.1.5 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh respectively. At the time of availing the loan, the opposite party offered an amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs for BSc Nursing course and Rs.3 lakhs for General Nursing course. Eventhough there is specific direction from the Government that no security should be received for educational loans upto 4 lakhs, the opposite party received the title deed of the property of 1.69 acres of agricultural land in Survey No.198/1/1 of Muttom Village owned by the complainant as security. After beginning the studies of the children, the opposite party denied further payment of the loan and so the complainant was not able to avail any other loan because the original title deed was given as security for the said loans. So the complainant was constrained to borrow money from private persons with hike interest. The termination period for the loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs is on 8.09.2014 and that of Rs.1 lakh is on 8.09.2013. But the opposite party issued demand notice to the complainant on 13.10.2009 threatening that the property will be taken over by them as per the SARFAESI Act. The complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman against the opposite party and the Banking Ombudsman ordered to rescheudle/restructure the loan without dues to the complainant. But the opposite party never tried to do the same. So the petition is filed for rescheduling the loan and also for compensation.
 

2.The opposite party filed a written version stating that Federal Vidya loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- were sanctioned on 8.09.2005 in the name of Aswathi.K. Gopinath and Akhila.K. Gopinath. The security for the above two loans was equitable mortgage of 169 cents of property belonged to the complainant. As per the terms of the loan agreement, the interest of the loan is to be repaid on monthly basis. On failure to repay the dues as per the terms of the agreement, a notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman stating that he is not in a position to repay the dues as per the terms agreed upon and requested for rescheduling of the account. This was agreed by the bank and required documents were to be executed. However, the parties never came to the bank to execute the documents and a registered letter was sent in this connection. The said notice was returned unclaimed. The complainant already approached the Banking Ombudsman for the very same cause of action. The Banking Ombudsman ordered for rescheduling of the loan, but the complainant and his two daughters never appeared in the bank for executing the rescheduling agreement. Finally the opposite party issued a registered notice to the complainant for executing the document for re-scheduling the loan, but it was returned unclaimed. Though the bank was willing to reschedule the account as agreed to before the Banking Ombudsman, the opposite parties have no inclination to regularise the account, but is protracting the legal proceedings initiated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act.
 

3. Heard from both sides. The opposite party is ready to reschedule/restructure the loan as per the direction of the Banking Ombudsman dated 23.12.2009. But the complainant never approached the opposite party as per the direction of the Banking Ombudsman for re-scheduling/re-structuring the loan and executing the documents for the same.

4. Both parties are ready for a settlement. Hence the complainant and his daughters Aswathi and Akhila are directed to approach the opposite party for re-scheduling/re-structuring the loan availed by them within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order. They are directed to execute the documents for re-scheduling/re-structuring the loan as per the settlement. The opposite party is also directed to re-schedule/re-structure the same as per the settlement, when the parties approaches them.
 

Both parties agreed. Hence the petition dismissed as per the settlement.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2010

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Nil