ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

            The complainant had obtained a Trader’s Special Loan [A/c.No.67005948792] from the 1^st opp.party.   The complainant is a member of the Karicode Unit of the Kerala Vyapari-Vyavsai Ekopana Samithi.  The loan was arranged to the Traders through the Kerala Vyapari-Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi had made  arrangements to repay the loan by effecting daily collection from the Traders including the Complainant.   The complainant was making prompt repayment through the system mooted by the opp.parties jointly.   While so it is noted by the complainant  that the amounts remitted by the complainant through the Kerala Vyapari-Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi was not being deposited in the Loan Account of the complainant in due time.  This delay in remitting the amount of the due dates caused additional burden of interest for destroyed payment.   This financial burden is cast upon the complainant for no fault on his part.   The delay in remittance became inordinate on several occasions.   The amounts remitted during the months of January and February 2008 was remitted in the complainant’s Loan Account only after 5^th April 2008.   The complainant was thus burdened with additional financial liability of interest for delayed payment of loan intalments.   A huge amount  is thus lost by the complainant.   The complainant requested the 1^st opp.party to receive the balance loan instalments from him directly.  But the 1^st opp.party refused to accept the amount directly from the complainant. The 1^st opp.party has a duty to safeguard the interests of loanees in such a situation.  The 1^st opp.parties have not even made any enquiries with the 2^nd and 3^rd opp.parties regarding the complaint raised by the complainant.  No action is initiated by the 1^st opp.party.  In this dispute to safeguard the legitimate rights of the complainant.  Hence filed this complaint for getting relief.

            1^st Opp.party filed version contenting that the  it is true that the complainant had availed a credit facility under the Bank’s Traders Special Scheme.  Apart from this complainant’s  large number of traders business men of the locality and who are members of the above samithi had also availed the benefit of Traders Special Scheme Loan Credit facility through this Bank, as sponsored by the above samithi.   The understanding between the Bank and the samithi was that the vyapara Vyavasaya Ekopana Samithi [which stands fro the over all benefits of its members] would collect the loan instalments from its members and would remit the same inlum-sum iat the bank, together with a statement regarding how to credit that amount in the various accounts of the traders, whom the samithi had sponsored.   It is true that this opp.party bank had earlier taken a stand that repayments from the loan account of the Complainant has to be remitted through the samithi.  The allegation of the complainant that the Bank was adamant and not prepared for a just settlement of  the issue” is totally false and hence denied.  On several occasions this opp.party bank had taken the initiative to settle this issue.  But it was the complainant alone, who was evasive.  If there was any difference of opinion between the complainant and the Ekopana Samithy, this opp.party bank shall not be punished/find or held liable in any manner.  If the complainant was having any genuine interest in repaying the loan instalments he could have directly remitted the same by way of a DD/cheque/MO, to the opp.party bank.   The complainant could have brought out these allegations before the higher authorities of the Bank.  No deficiency in service in made by this opp.party to the complainant and no loss is caused to him due to the act of this opp.party.  Hence it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to dismiss this case with costs to the 1^st opp.party State Bank of Travancore.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

Opp.party 2 and 3 are exparte

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Ext. P1 to P7

For the opp.party DW.1  was examined.

THE POINTS:

There is no dispute that the complainant had obtained a Trader’s Special Loan from the 1^st opp.party and the loan was arranged to the traders through the Kerala Vyapari-Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi and the Kerala Vypari Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi had made arrangement to pay the loan by effecting daily collection from the traders.   According to the complainant, the amounts remitted by the complainant through the Vyapara-Vyavasaya Ekopana Samithi was not being deposited in the Loan Account of the complainant in due time.   This delay in remitting the amount  on the due dates caused additional burden of interest for delayed payment.   The amounts remitted during the months of January and February 2008 was remitted in the complainant’s Loan Account only after 8thApril 2008.   The complainant contented that in such a situation the 1^st opp.party has a duty to safeguard the interest of loanees.  Complainant’s complaint is that no action is initiated by the 1^st opp.party in this dispute to safeguard the legitimate rights of the complainant.

According to 1^st opp.party the understanding between the 1^st and 2^nd opp.party was that 2^nd opp.party would collect the loan instalments from its members and would remit the same inlump-sum at the Bank together with a statement regarding how to credit  that amount in the various accounts of the traders, who the samithi had sponsored.  1^st opp.party’s version is that if there was any difference of opinion between the complainant and the Ekopana Samithy, they shall not be held liable in any manner.

According to the complainant he requested the 1^st opp.party to receive the balance loan instalments from him directly.  But the 1^st opp.party refused to accept the amount directly from the complainant.  As per Ext.P2 the Vypara Vyavasaya Ekopana Samithi would collect the loan instalments from its members and would remit the same in lum-sum at the Bank.  Here there is no dispute that the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasaya Ekopana Samithi had made arrangements to repay the loan by effecting  daily collection from the Traders including the complainant and the complainant was making repayment through the opp.parties 2 and 3.  According to the 1^st opp.party if they collected the loan repayment instalments directly from the complainant, it was in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement mutually agreed upon.  We are also of view that the complainant has to comply the agreement condition mutually agreed upon between the complainant and opp.parties 1 and 2 that  the Vypara Vyavasaya Samithy would collect the loan instalments from its members and would remit the same in lump-sum at the Bank .  From the initial stage of the loan, the complainant had repaid the loan amount through the Kerala Vyapari Vyvasaya Ekopana Samithi.   The burden of collecting instalments and remitting the amount to the Bank was  entrusted to the opp.parties 2 and 3.  Here the complainant’s case is that they requested the 1^st opp.party to receive the balance loan instalments from him directly.   For that no evidence has been produced from the side of complainant.   According to the complainant they have remitted the repayment amount through opp.parties2 and 3 in due time.  But opp.parties 2 and 3 did not remit the said amount to the 1^st opp.party in due time and that caused additional burden of interest for delayed payment.   There is no material evidence to  prove that  point also.  If  the complainant was having any genuine interest in repaying  the loan instalments he could have directly remitted the instalments by way of a DD/cheque/M.O to the opp.party 1.  Otherwise the complainant could have bought out these allegations to the higher authorities of opp.party 1.

On considering the entire evidence we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.   The complainant has to remit the balance loan amount with interest.  The Forum permit the complainant to remit the balance loan amount to the bank directly.

In the result the complaint fails and  is  dismissed without cost.

Dated this the    31^ST      day of March, 2012.

I n d e x

List of witnesses for the complainant : PW.1 – Shaji

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Certificate dt. 29..12..2005

P2. – Letter dated 29..5..2008

P3. – Complaint before Legal Service Authority

P4. – Reply

P5. – Reply from RBI dt. 24..4..2008

P6. – Reply from RBI dt. 8..7..2008

P7. Letter dated 16..6..2008

List of witnesses for the opp.parties:  DW.1. – Prakash