DATE OF FILING : 22.6.2011
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.140/2011
Between
Complainant : Smijesh M.C.,
Marappillil House,
Kadavoor P.O.,
Paingottoor.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
And
Opposite Party : The Manager,
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.,
Vannappuram Branch,
Vannappuram P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Advs: Jolly James Vattakkuzhi
& Dipu Chandran)
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant availed an overdraft loan for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the opposite party bank in the year 2005 by mortgaging the property of his mother and with the guarantee of his brother for conducting business of rubber shop, for winning his daily bread. The loan became due because the business was in failure, so that the opposite party issued a notice to the complainant through the lawyer, on 6.1.2007. On receiving the same, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested for including in the OTS scheme of the opposite party. The opposite party assured to include the loan in the OTS scheme in the month of March and also directed the complainant to pay Rs.3 lakhs for getting the waiver of Rs.32,000/-. The complainant paid the amount to the opposite party and they agreed to close the loan account. After a blue moon, on 22.05.2007, a notice was received from the opposite party demanding Rs.33,153/- and on the same day itself, the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about the same but the opposite party replied that the notice was issued by mistake and the loan account will be close soon. But recently, it was informed from the bank that there is a due of Rs.71,819/- and the statement of account was also received. The opposite party assured a waiver of 10% as per the OTS scheme for his loan, because he paid an amount of Rs.3 lakhs. After a long time now the opposite party is demanding a very huge amount and it is a deficiency in the part of the opposite party. So this petition is filed for cancelling the same.
(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.3 lakhs from the opposite party bank at Vannappuram Branch. The bank never given an undertaking to the effect that the loan will be closed on payment of a lump sum amount of Rs.3 lakhs. The complainant requested to waive the interest, by a letter dated 10.1.2007 and the branch manager forwarded a proposal of compromise to its zonal office. Another letter was received from the complainant with a willingness to pay Rs.3,10,000/- to the bank and the manager forwarded the same also to the zonal office on 19.2.2007 with a covering letter. But the zonal compromise committee of the bank held on 12.3.2007 permitted the bank to settle the account by allowing a remission of Rs.5,000/- from the total dues for closing the account on or before 30.3.2007 and the matter was intimated to the complainant also. Hence the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.3 lakhs on 22.3.2007. The opposite party never agreed to waive Rs.32,000/- from the loan account and no such undertaking has been given to the complainant. Another demand notice was issued on 22.5.2007 by the opposite party and never intimated the complainant that it is a mistake happened from the part of them. The total outstanding amount as on 29.1.2011 in the loan account of the complainant is Rs.59,775/- and not Rs.71,819/- and the bank is entitled to get back the loan amount from the complainant who is the borrower.
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. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DWs1 and 2 Exts.R1 to R6 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT:- PW1 who is the complainant produced the demand letter issued by the opposite party dated 6.1.2007 for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs + interest and it is marked as Ext.P1. On receiving the same, PW1 has made a request to the opposite party for including the loan in the OTS scheme of the opposite party. As per the request, the opposite party included the loan in the OTS scheme and directed the complainant to pay Rs.3 lakhs and so that the complainant had paid the amount to the opposite party bank. After that they have issued a notice on 22.5.2007 for an amount of Rs.33,153/- which is marked as Ext.P3. While the complainant approached the bank, they convinced that it was a mistake on the part of the opposite party and the loan account would be closed. Unfortunately, another statement of account was issued from the opposite party in January, 2011 demanding an amount of Rs.58,934/- and it is marked as Ext.P2. The request given by the complainant to the opposite party is marked as Ext.R1.
(cont....3)
- 3 -
DW1 who is the manager of the opposite party produced the copy of recommendation letter given by the opposite party to the zonal office on receiving the request of the complainant for including in the OTS scheme is marked as Ext.R3. On receiving the two requests from the complainant, they also intimated the matter to the zonal office as the complainant is ready to pay Rs.3,10,000/- to the bank, with a covering letter and it is marked as Ext.R4. But unfortunately, the opposite party permitted to allow a remission of Rs.5,000/- from the total dues and the same is marked as Ext.R5. So a detailed statement of account of the complainant has been issued and as per the statement of account, an amount of Rs.65,136/- is due as on 31st July, 2011 and it is marked as Ext.R6. On cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, DW1 deposed that on 22.3.2007, the complainant paid Rs.3 lakhs to the opposite party bank and the due on that day was Rs.3,32,000/-. DW1 never knows whether any letter has been issued by the opposite party bank after 2007 May, to the complainant. After that a demand notice was made by the bank only on January, 2011 and DW1 is not aware of the compromise done on the account of the complainant’s loan. The then manager of the opposite party bank produced evidence as DW2. DW2 deposed that the complainant has given an application for including in the OTS scheme and the complainant approached the bank as per the notice issued by the bank, a talk has been conducted between the complainant and the bank regarding the OTS and after that on arriving the settlement between the complainant and the bank, the complainant paid Rs.3 lakhs to the opposite party. It is admitted by the DW2 that as per the settlement between the bank and the complainant, Rs.3 lakhs was paid by the complainant and he also deposed that a written notice was issued to the complainant after remitting the amount in the year May, 2007 was only on January, 2011.
So it is admitted by DW2 that there was a settlement talk conducted between the bank and the complainant regarding the OTS scheme and so he paid Rs.3 lakhs to the opposite party bank as per deposition of DW2 in the page No.2. If a mistake happened from the part, from the mouth of DW2, while he was in the box, the learned counsel for the opposite party never tried to re-examine him for the same. It is also admitted by DW2 that after paying the amount on 22.3.2007, never a notice has been issued by the opposite party to the complainant for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.32,000/- and notice was issued only in the year January, 2011. But there is no evidence produced by the opposite party to show that they have issued notice to the complainant for the recovery of loan in the month of January 2011. In the statement of account of the complainant’s loan produced by the opposite party as on 31st July, 2011, which is marked as Ext.R6, the due amount is Rs.65,136/- and as per the written version produced by the opposite party, it is written that Rs.59,775/- is due towards the complainant’s loan account. So if there is a due of more than Rs.32,000/- at the time of paying the amount at the opposite party bank on March, 2007, what
(cont....4)
- 4 -
prevented the opposite party to issue notice to the complainant for the recovery of the amount. A long delay of 3 years has been caused for issuing such a statement of account to the complainant. The complainant paid the amount to the opposite party in the year 2007 itself and while the opposite party issued another notice for the balance due of Rs.33,153/-, PW1 approached the opposite party and enquired about the same, so that the opposite party revealed that it is a mistake happened from them and told that the account would be closed later.
So we think that some mistake has been happened in the part of the opposite party, so that they have made such a long delay for issuing statement of account to the complainant. No demand notice has been produced by the opposite party before the Forum to show that they have issued notices for the recovery of further amount. In the Ext.R3, a compromise proposal prepared by the opposite party to the zonal office shows that there is a due of Rs.3,23,105/- to the complainant’s loan and sources of fund for settlement are levied to all the friends and relatives and sale of property of the complainant. The business of the complainant has been closed because the loss incurred in the market rate and fluctuations. So it is very clear that the bank decided to avoid the legal recovery proceedings from the opposite party, as per the clause 42 of the proposal and the borrower has incurred heavy loss in the business and his father with the help of the family members were ready to settle the account and it is written as recommendation of the bank in Ext.R3. The business of the complainant was already closed and he had made compromise proposal and the bank may have accepted the same. But after that they have issued a notice to the complainant in the year 2011. After that proposal and payment done by the complainant, the opposite party never initiated any proceedings against the complainant for a long period of 3 years. It means that the bank was aware that the complainant was not having any property to recover the loan and may be the opposite party bank decided to stop the proceedings against the complainant. So we think that the complainant has appended some amount in any other source and it is revealed by the bank after 3 years and because of the same the bank constrained to issue legal proceedings against the complainant again. It is not at all proper, that the complainant has been suffering from the legal proceedings of the bank after a long 3 years. It is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party. Anyway, as per the Ext.R2, the request given by the complainant to the opposite party on 19.2.2007, it is stated that he was ready to pay Rs.3,10,000/- to the bank. But he paid Rs.3 lakhs to the opposite party bank. So we think that it is proper to close the loan as per the request of the complainant as per Ext.R2 and the opposite party is not entitled to recover the interest of loan after the settlement as per the OTS scheme, after receiving the request dated 19.2.2007, which is Ext.R2.
(cont....5)
- 5 -
Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite party is directed to settle the loan account of the complainant (as loan No.0193-02370673-708001[old No.200500123]) as per Ext.R2 request given by the complainant. The complainant should approach the opposite party for payment, within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of this order, for the same.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of November, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Smijesh M.C.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Antony N.S.
DW2 - Thomas P. Chacko.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the demand notice issued by the opposite party.
Ext.P2(series) - The statement of account issued by the opposite party.
Ext.P3 - Copy of the notice issued by the opposite party dated 22.5.2007.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - The request given by the complainant to the opposite party
dated 10.1.2007.
Ext.R2 - Copy of the request given by the complainant to the opposite party
dated 19.2.2007.
Ext.R3 - Copy of the compromise proposal given by the opposite party
to the zonal office.
Ext.R4 - The letter given by the opposite party to the zonal office.
Ext.R5 - The letter from the zonal office to the opposite party.
Ext.R6 - The statement of account of the complainant’s loan.
