Kerala

Idukki

CC/11/228

Thomas P J - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Biju Vasudevan

28 Dec 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/228
 
1. Thomas P J
Puthuparambil House ,Nelivayalil,Thankamoney
Idukki
kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager
Malanadu Co-Operative,Agriculturel and Rural Devt Bank Ltd.No K 352,Kambilikandam Branch ,Kambilikandam
Idukki
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MR. Laiju Ramakrishnan PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Bindu Soman Member
 
PRESENT:Biju Vasudevan, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING : 4.11.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of December, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.228/2011

Between

Complainant : Thomas P.J.

Puthupparambil House,

Neelivayal, Thankamany P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

Malanadu Co-operative Agricultural and

Rural Development Bank Ltd.,

No.K.352, Kambilikandam Branch,

Kambilikandam P.O.,

Idukki District.


 

O R D E R


 

SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)


 

The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.60,000/- from the respondent bank on 22.01.2000. The loan became defaulted. The complainant sent an application to the Hon'ble Farmers Debt Relief Commission on 26.02.2011. The Hon'ble Commission considered his application and passed an order. As per the order, the complainant is directed to pay Rs.47,000/- to the opposite party bank. With the order, the complainant had approached the opposite party for the payment. But the opposite party never allowed. The rejection of payment comes under the definition of deficiency of service. Hence the complainant filed this petition before this Forum.


 

2. In spite of notice from the Forum, the opposite party was absent. No written version filed. So the opposite party called exparte.


 

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. No oral evidence adduced by both the parties.


 

(cont....2)

- 2 -


 

5. The POINT :- The complainant have no oral evidence. With the complaint itself, produced the order of the Hon'ble Farmers Debt Relief Commission. The receipts of earlier payments are also produced by the complainant.

 

The aim and object of the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Act, 2006 is to help the Farmers in their financial stringency. The complainant is ready for the payment, but the opposite party was objected the payment. We think that the order of the Hon'ble Farmers Debt Relief Commission is very much binding to the opposite party bank. The non-acceptance of payment is a deficiency of service.


 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to receive Rs.47,000/- from the complainant as per the order of the Hon'ble Farmers Debt Relief Commission and issue the documents pledged at the opposite party bank to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to approach the opposite party for the payment within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.


 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of December, 2011


 


 

Sd/-

SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)


 

Sd/-

I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)


 


 


 


 

APPENDIX

Nil.


 


 


 

 
 
[HONABLE MR. Laiju Ramakrishnan]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Bindu Soman]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.