IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.143/08 (Filed on 27.09.2008) Between: Maniyamma. S, Kondoorkunnivilayil, Manakkala.P.O., Adoor. ..... Complpainant. And: 1. The Managing Director, KSFE Head Office, Thrissur. 2. The Branch Manager, KSFE Branch Office, Pandalam. (By Adv. Sam Koshy) .... Opposite parties. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The fact of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant was a subscriber of the Chitty No.44/95 started by the 2nd opposite party. On 4.1.1996 the complainant had taken a loan as NCL 78/95 from the chitty amount for the marriage purpose of his daughter. After that the complainant could not remit the loan amount duly due to the hospitalisation. Then the opposite parties were started recovery steps from the sureties as per the terms and conditions of the loan. On 30.1.2001 the complainant had remitted an amount of Rs.25,000/- and closed the loan. After closing the loan the opposite parties have demanded more money from the complainant. Then on a perusal of the opposite parties records it is learnt that an amount of Rs.7,000/- was recovered from one sureties of the loan has not been credited in the loan account. Even after the opposite parties had proceed action against the complainant then on 20.5.04 the complainant had sent a notice to the opposite parties and they have replied on 25.5.04. After on enquiry an amount of Rs.8,731.86 recovered from the complainant and from the sureties from 10/96 to 1998 has not been credited in the complainant’s loan account. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,23,416/- instead of the loan amount Rs.98,000/-. There is an order existing that when the interest of the loan exceeds the loan amount no more interest to be charged, the opposite parties have levied an addl. amount of Rs.27,416/- from the complainant. By responding the notice sent by the complainant on 24.5.04 the opposite parties have sent a reply to the complainant demanding to accept the excess amount received from her. But due to the lack of an amicable settlement the complainant had sent another notice to the opposite parties and after accepting the notice the opposite parties directed the complainant to approach the 2nd opposite party on 14.10.05. As per the direction the complainant approached several time to the 2nd opposite party for settling the matter but the opposite parties have not settled the matter. The non-settlement of the complainant’s grievances is a deficiency in service and which caused mental agony, financial loss etc. to the complainant. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the same. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to pay the interest and penal interest of Rs.8,731/- and the additional amount of Rs.27,416/- as loan amount recovered from the complainant along with a compensation and cost. The complainant prays for granting the relief. 3. The opposite parties have filed a common version stating the following contentions: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite parties have admitted the chitty and NCL 78/95 taken by the complainant. The repayment of loan was the monthly instalments. The complainant offered two employees as sureties at the time of availing the loan. When the complainant defaulted the instalment the opposite parties have taken recovery steps against the sureties. Sri. K.N. Sasikumaran Nair and Sri. Jose. K.G were the sureties. The details of recovery is shown as follows:- 1. K.N. Sasikumaran Nair -- Rs. 21,000. 00 2. Jose. K.G. -- Rs. 18,000. 00 3. Direct -- Rs. 74,236. 00 4. APSTC -- Rs. 13,179. 00 ------------------------- Total -- Rs.1,26,415.75 =============== As per the actual calculation only an amount of Rs.1,23,415.75 was due from the complainant. There is an amount of Rs.3,000/- was excess recovered from the complainant and that amount was decided to be refunded. 4. The averment in the complainant that the total interest cannot be recovered in excess of the principal loan amount is not fully correct. As per HO order No.176/03 dated 20.11.03 when the interest portion exceeds the advance portion, no more interest to be charged, remitted cases cannot be re-opened. The opposite parties had apportioned and adjusted the amount only in tune with the contract and various circulars that too within the pressings of law. The allegation that an amount of Rs.7,000/- was recovered from the sureties was not adjusted towards the loan account is not correct. All the correspondents made by the complainant to the opposite parties were properly entertained by the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service from the part of them hence the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the opposite parties. Therefore the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. The points to be considered in this complaint are:- (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the power of attorney holder of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. For the opposite parties, 2nd opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 marked. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 7. The complainant’s case is that the complainant subscribed a chitty conducted by the 2nd opposite party and had availed a NCL from the chitty. The complainant was defaulted the loan instalments then the opposite parties started recovery from the sureties of loan and the loan closed. According to the complainant, the opposite parties have recovered an excess amount of Rs.7,000/- from the sureties and the opposite parties recovered the interest excess of the principal loan amount. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 marked. Ext.A1 is the Power of Attorney in favour of PW1. Ext.A2 is the loan extract of NCL 78/95 from 02.12.1996 to 02.03.2001 (details of remittance) taken by the complainant. Ext.A3 is the receipt for the payment of Rs.25,000/- on 30.03.2001 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A4 is the copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the second opposite party on 24.05.2004. Ext.A5 is the reply dated 28.05.2004 sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A6 is the copy of the letter-dated 28.05.2005 sent by the complainant to the Finance Minister. Ext.A7 is the notice-dated 14.10.2005 sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A8 is the copy of letter-dated 03.01.2006 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A9 is the letter-dated 14.06.2006 sent by the opposite party to the complainant. The opposite party’s counsel has cross-examined PW1. 9. The opposite parties contended that there is no deficiency in service from the part of them. There is an amount of Rs.3,000/- was excess recovered from the complainant and it was decided to be refunded. The opposite parties had apportioned and adjusted the amount only in tune with the contract and various circulars within the pressings of law. They have denied the allegation that an amount of Rs.7,000/-, recovered from the sureties was not adjusted the loan account. 10. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, 2nd opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 marked. Ext.B1 is the copy of the statement of loan account (from 4.1.1996 to 26.10.2005) of the NCL 78 taken by the complainant. The complainant’s counsel has been cross-examined DW1. 11. On going through the evidences in this case, the materials on records shows that the complainant had taken the NCL/78 on 4.1.1996 for an amount of Rs.48,000/- and it was closed on 26.10.05. The complainant had remitted totally an amount of Rs.1,26,415/-. According to the complainant, the complainant and sureties remitted the amount promptly. But it was not credited in the loan account in due course by the opposite parties. Further there is a direction from the higher authorities of the opposite parties that the total interest cannot be recovered in excess of the principal loan amount. But the opposite parties have charged more interest than the loan amount. At the time of cross-examination of DW1, DW1 stated that “Pmay¡mcn \n¶pw FÃm amkhpw IrXyambn In«Wsa¶nÃ. KSFEn ]Ww F¶v In«p¶pthm A¶p hscbpÅ ]eni CuSm¡pw”. “KSFEpsS one time settlement scheme {]Imcw original rate of interest-\¡mIpdª td A\phZn¨ncp¶p. Loan amount/span> IqSpX ]enibn\¯n AS¨n«ps¦n account closeN¿msa¶pw hyhp”v. Further “one time settlement scheme \nehnepÅt¸m/span> loan account settle sNbvsX¦n am{Xsa Cu B\pIqey§e`n¡pIbpÅp”. There is no evidence from the complainant that she had settled the loan account as per one time settlement scheme and she is entitled to get the benefit as per the scheme. Moreover, the complainant had demanded an amount of Rs.36,147/- as the additional interest and penal interest recovered from her and the additional amount twice as much loan amount from the opposite parties. There is no cogent evidence from the part of the complainant for proving that she had entitled this much amount from the opposite parties or on which basis she had demanded this amount from the opposite parties. We are not aware of the rate of interest of loan amount and its dues, and the term of the loan was not known. The loan agreement was not produced before the Forum by both the parties. From the evidence, it can be seen that the complainant had taken the loan on 4.1.1996 and it was closed only on 26.10.05. Through Ext.A5, A7 and A9 the opposite parties have informed the complainant that they have received an excess amount from her and that was decided to be refunded to her. We are not interfering their decision. The complainant is entitled to get the additional amount received from her and the opposite parties are liable to pay it. Based on the above discussions, in the absence of cogent evidence to prove the allegations against the opposite parties the complainant’s prayer cannot allowable. In the circumstances, we find any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. The complainant failed to prove her case hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 11th day of June, 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : N. Pankajakshan Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Power of attorney dated 19.3.09 executed by the complainant in favour of her husband. A2 : Loan extract of NCL 78/95 from 02.12.1996 to 02.03.2001. A3 : Photocopy of Receipt dated 30.03.2001 for Rs.25,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. A4 : Photocopy of the letter sent by the complainant to the second opposite party on 24.05.2004. A5 : Reply letter dated 28.05.2004 sent by the opposite party to the complainant. A6 : Photocopy of the letter dated 28.05.2005 sent by the complainant to the Finance Minister. A7 : Letter dated 14.10.2005 sent by the opposite party to the complainant. A8 : Photocopy of registered letter dated 03.01.2006 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. A9 : Letter dated 14.06.2006 sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 : Suresh. S. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Photocopy of the statement from 04.01.1996 to 26.10.2005. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to: (1) Maniyamma. S, Kondoorkunnivilayil, Manakkala.P.O., Adoor. (2) The Managing Director, KSFE Head Office, Thrissur. (3) The Branch Manager, KSFE Branch Office, Pandalam. (4) The stock file.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
