DATE OF FILING : 1.8.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.163/2011
Between
Complainant : Mini K.S.
Kandananickal House,
Kolapra, Kudayathoor P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
And
Opposite Party : The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Travancore,
Muttam Branch,
Muttam P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Babichen V. George)
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant availed a loan of Rs.47,500/- from the opposite party bank in PMRY scheme for conducting a Book Stall at Muttam, for the livelihood of her family. Unfortunately, the business became dull and she was constrained to close the business because of heavy burden of loss of business. The complainant was promptly repaying the amount to the opposite party in early days and after that she was not able to pay the amount. So the opposite party issued notice demanding for interest, compound interest and other expenses in the due of the loan. The loan was availed as per the scheme of the Central Government for the unemployed youth and the opposite party is entitled to recover the lowest interest for the same. A demand notice was issued by the opposite party on 7.6.2011 for an amount of Rs.2,77,221/- and it is issued without accounting the correct amount paid by the complainant and also accounted interest and compound interest for the same. So the complainant is not entitled to pay the same and she was paying the loan promptly in the early stages. Several times the complainant requested for getting the statement of account, but it was not at all issued by the opposite party. So this petition is filed for getting a direction to the opposite party to close the amount as OTS as per the Scheme of the Government with interest as per the PMRY scheme of the Central Government and also for compensation.
(cont.....2) - 2 -
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.47,500/- from the opposite party for running a Book Stall at Muttam, under PMRY scheme. The loan was sanctioned on 22.9.2000 and repayment of the loan was not bad. The repayment of the loan was promptly done as per the terms of the loan agreement. But the opposite party never denied the statement of account at any time. The opposite party charged interest and other charges as per the agreement between the bank and the complainant. All the rates and norms are absolutely as per the RBI scheme. The opposite party has every right to apply interest and other charges as per the agreement created between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant has grossly violated the terms of contract and the amount remitted by the complainant was not enough to service the interest of the loan. The account was running irregular for a long period which was brought to the notice of the borrower on several times and the bank account became NPA. There is no deficiency from the part of the opposite party and the opposite party has every right to recover the loan account.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. There is no oral evidence adduced by both the parties. Both parties and their counsels appeared. Heard both parties.
5. The POINT :- It is argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that, on perusing the pass book issued by the opposite party for the complainant's loan, produced by the complainant, it is clear that the complainant was promptly repaying the loan account for more than 6 years and it is also admitted by the opposite party. An adequate amount has been paid by the complainant to the opposite party, but the opposite party has charged interest for the loan and the rate of interest of the loan was not at all produced by the opposite party and no statement of account of the loan was also produced by the opposite party to show the same. Before producing the evidence of the case, both parties are ready for a settlement and the husband of the complainant suggested to pay Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party as settlement amount for closing the loan and the opposite party directly submitted that they are ready for settlement and they can recommend the same to the Head Office and sanction is needed, because the Manager is not the authority to settle the loan of the complainant.
So on perusing the statement of account of the loan, it is very clear that the complainant was promptly repaying the loan as per the PMRY scheme of the Central Government. But unfortunately, the business of the complainant was dull and she
(cont....3)
- 3 -
was constrained to close the shop and it is submitted by the husband of the complainant that now she is laid up due to illness and also not able to come before this Forum. Anyway, they are ready to close the entire loan, if the opposite party offer some relaxation in the loan account as per the OTS scheme and also gives instalment facility for the same. The opposite party also agreed to recommend the same to the Head Office. So we think that it is a PMRY loan and it is absolutely for the welfare of the unemployed youths and the complainant availed the loan for earning her daily bread by conducting a Book Stall. Eventhough she was a lady, was doing the business promptly and paying the loan promptly and it is also admitted by the opposite party. After more than six years the business became dull and due to illness of the complainant, she was not able to pay the amount. But they are ready to pay the entire loan and she had repaid a gross amount to the bank. The opposite party is also bound to give relaxation in the same and only entitled to charge the interest as per the norms of the Central Government in the PMRY scheme.
Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite party is directed to close the loan account of the complainant after receiving Rs.10,000/- from the complainant, as per the OTS scheme with a monthly instalment facility of not less than two after the receipt of the copy of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of November, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Nil.
