DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of July 2015
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 13/11/2013
(C.C.No.189/2013)
Muhammedkutty,
S/o.Moidukutty,
Cheruparambil House,
Vazhempuram Post,
Karakurussi, Mannarkkad
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.K.Dhananjaryan)
Vs
1.The Mannarkkad Co-operative
Agricultural and Rural Development
Bank Ltd., Mannarkkad
Palakkad
2.The Secretary,
The Mannarkkad Co-operative
Agricultural and Rural Development
Bank Ltd., Mannarkkad
Palakkad - Opposite parties
(By Adv.V.V.Thambi)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of complaint.
The complainant had availed three loans bearing nos. (1) MHRH 045/1997-98 for Rs.50,000/- on 20/9/1997, (2) MFLD 001/1994-1995 on 19/9/1994 for Rs.10,000/- and (3) MFM 1023/1994/95 on 9/9/2004 for Rs.10,000/-. Complainant submitted that as the complainant was out of state he could not repay the loan regularly. Then the opposite parties put the immovable property of complainant in auction. The complainant approached Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court has ordered for the reconsideration of the decision taken by the bank. At the same time, there was a scheme available as per the decision of Govt. of Kerala the Co-operative sector bank to close the matured and due loans by way of single closing provision i.e. one time settlement. Complainant submitted that Opposite parties did not provide benefit of OTS to the complainant. Due to this act of opposite parties complainant has sustained huge loss. Complainant submitted that the tenure of MHRH 045/1997-98 is 15 years and the closing date of the loan as on 01/10/2012. Then the complainant remitted Rs.12,513/-, the opposite parties bank has taken of Rs.3,000/-in excess than what that they are legally entitled to take and credit in his account. The complainant has remitted Rs.4,037/- in Account No.MFM 1023/94-95. On 16/10/2002 the complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- and on 13/11/2002 the complainant has paid Rs.2,000/-. Both these amounts have not been duly credited in the loan account of the complainant.
Afterwards opposite parties put again immovable property of complainant in auction. Again complainant approached the High Court of Kerala to adjourn the auction and sale of immovable properties and the Hon’ble High Court adjourned the sale on the condition that complainant shall pay Rs.20,000/- immediately . At that time Govt. extended period of OTS and in furtherance of that complainant has paid Rs.8,400/- on 24/3/2004, Rs.8,400/- on 24/4/2004, Rs.8,400/- on 24/5/2004 and another Rs.8,400/- on 24/6/04. Complainant further submitted that these amounts were not been credited by opposite parties in the loan A/c of complainant. Thus complainant has sustained a loss of Rs.33,600/- and if opposite parties credited those amounts in the account of complainant, the consequential interest would also have been decreased and it would have been added in the principal amount. Thus non crediting of the amounts is intentional by opposite parties and causing wrongful loss to complainant would amounts clear deficiency in service.
In addition to that another amount of Rs.7,000/- have also not seen as credited, thus the complainant has lost of Rs.40,600/- as on 24/6/2004. All these remittance of the amount is in the loan transaction of MHRH 045/1997-98.
On 17/7/2012 complainant filed an application before Co-operative Joint Registrar (General), to redress his grievances. Joint Registrar sent a reply stating that as far as the loan LD2 and loan M1 59 are being closed and in the loan RHL 1042 the complainant has so far remitted Rs.8,516/- and the remaining outstanding balance is Rs.59,737/- and has also made it clear that, if the complainant remit and close the entire loan amount at once, then he can avail the concession and benefit of Rs.11,044/- and as per direction of Joint Registrar, complainant remitted Rs.53,714/- on 27/9/2013.
Complainant also submitted that opposite parties has not given recovery concession of Rs.11,044/- as per order No.5155/2012 AEL/ELDIS dated 27/9/2012 issued by Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The non entering and crediting of the amount in the loan account of the complainant and non granting one time settlement benefit would amounts to the violation of legal right and it would also amounts to deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.
Complainant submitted that he is entitled to get Rs.40,600/- and its consequential interest @12% from 24/6/2004 i.e. Rs.44,280/- (Total Rs.84,880/-) from opposite parties, Rs.25,000/- for compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation expenses. Altogether complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,09,880/- from opposite parties with further interest @12%/- per annum.
Complaint was admitted and notice issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending the following.
Opposite parties submitted that complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant has not utilized the opportunity of one time settlement by remitting the loan amount within the stipulated time. The amount remitted by complainant was duly credited to his account.
The complainant failed to make use of the benefits as contemplated in the order of Joint Registrar. Complainant did not remit the due amount in the stipulated period and time. Thus the complainant has loss the benefit of one time settlement after the prescribed limit of one time settlement. Opposite parties cannot grant any benefit to the complainant which is beyond the control of opposite parties. The amount of Rs.40,600/- was credited into his loan account. The complainant has availed benefits of Rs.2,123/- on 31/8/2004, Rs.1,355/- on 14/10/2004, Rs.61/- as on 31/3/2006 from Agricultural Temporary Debt Relief Act and other benefit from Govt. Debt Relief packages. Opposite parties submitted that all the amount remitted by the complainant were credited to his loan account and all allowable benefit are granted to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of opposite parties.
Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to A22 (except Ext.A-20) are marked from the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to B3 are marked from the side of opposite parties.
Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and opposite parties was cross examined as DW1.
Issues that arises for consideration are
1.Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
2.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3.If so what is the relief
Issue No.1
Both parties heard. We have perused the documents produced before the Forum. First contention of the opposite parties is that the complaint is not maintainable. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act specifically states that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Further Secretary, Thirumrugam V M Lalitha Co operative Agricultural Credit Society Apex court held that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide the matters connected with co operative societies. Hence the 1st issue found in favour of complainant.
Issues 2&3
At the time of cross examination DW 1 deposed that loan No.RHL 042 is corresponding to Loan No. MHRH 045. Dispute with regard to this loan No RHL 042 (MHRH 045) only. The allegation of the complainant is that an amount of Rs.33,600/- were not credited to the loan account and not entered in the pass book of complainant by opposite parties. As per Ext. A1 to A7 the complainant has remitted altogether an amount of Rs.33,600/- to the opposite parties on different dates. On the perusal of Ext.B1 it shows that Rs.33,600/- were credited to the loan account of the complainant on the dates as mentioned in the complaint. Similarly complainant submitted that he has paid an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the opposite parties which were also not credited to the loan account of complainant. Even though complainant has not produced document to show the payment of Rs.7,000/-, on the perusal of Ext.B1 it revealed that Rs.7,000/- was also credited to the loan account of complainant by the opposite parties. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get back Rs.40,600/- and its consequential interest at the rate of 12% from 24-6-2004. On the perusal of pass book, it shows that entries were not properly recorded. Some corrections are there in the pass book. Complainant admitted that pass books were in the custody of himself. As pass books were in the custody of the complainant, we cannot attribute negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties if there is any corrections in it. Complainant can make corrections in the pass book. Hence this allegation against opposite parties cannot be taken in to consideration.
Complainant further alleged that the onetime settlement benefit has not been given to the complainant even after he paid the entire balance amount within the reasonable period. Joint Registrar sent a letter dated 17-9-2012 Ext. A8 to the complainant stating that if the complainant deposit Rs.59,737/- immediately after receipt of the notice, the complainant would get the benefit of Rs.11,044/-. Immediately after getting the notice, on 27-9-2012 complainant remitted a sum of Rs.53,714/- to the opposite parties as per the direction of the opposite parties . He has a liability to pay the sum of Rs.48693 only as per the demand notice of joint registrar. But the opposite parties collected excess amount of Rs.5,021/- from the complainant. The complainant did not get the benefit of Rs.11,044/-. Ext.A13 proves this fact. It is a clear proof of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. By the act of opposite parties complainant has sustained the financial loss of Rs.5,021/-.
At the time of argument complainant submitted that the opposite parties are not properly keeping the books of account. If there is any complaint with regard to the keeping of books of account he has to approach higher authority who has the control over the Co-operative societies/Bank.
In the above circumstances we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint is allowed partly. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,021/- (Rupees Five thousand twenty one only) towards excess amount collected from the complainant, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony sustained and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of July 2015.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Statement of account dated 28/1/2011 furnished by opposite parties
Ext.A2 – Xerox copy of receipt dated 27/9/2012
Ext.A3 – Letter issued by Jt.Registrar dated 17/9/2012
Ext.A4 – Receipt No.6914 dated 25/9/2000 issued by opposite parties to the
complainant.
Ext.A5 – Receipt No.5238 dated 16/10/2002 issued by opposite parties to the
complainant.
Ext.A6 – Receipt No.5367 dated 13/11/2002 issued by opposite parties to the
complainant.
Ext.A7 – Receipt No.7986 dated 24/3/2004 issued by opposite parties to the
complainant.
Ext.A8 – Copy of Letter issued by Jt.Registrar of Co-op.Society, Palakkad to
the complainant dated 17/9/2012
Ext.A9 - Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated
20/9/2012
Ext.A10 – Cash receipt No.4053 dated 24/4/2004 issued by opposite parties to
the complainant.
Ext.A11 – Cash receipt No.4408 dated 8/5/2004 issued by opposite parties to
the complainant.
Ext.A12 – Cash receipt No.4864 dated 26/6/2004 issued by opposite parties to
the complainant.
Ext.A13 – Cash receipt No.50 dated 27/9/2012 issued by opposite parties to
the complainant.
Ext.A14 – Pass Book issued by opposite parties
Ext.A15 – Pass Book issued by opposite parties
Ext.A16 – Pass Book issued by opposite parties
Ext.A17 – RI Letter dated 25/1/2013 issued by opposite parties to complainant.
Ext.A18 – Notice sent by opposite parties to complainant.
Ext.A19 – Photocopy of form of release deed of Gahan.
Ext.A21 – Acknowledgement card signed by Secretary
Ext.A22 – Stamped envelope sent by opposite parties to complainant.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Certified copy of loan ledger HLA58/97,98
Ext.B2 – Certified copy of loan ledger LDLA2/94,95
Ext.B3 – Certified copy of loan lodger M1(s)LA58/94.95
Examination of complainant
PW1 – Mohammedkutty.
Examination of opposite parties
DW1 – Mohammed.P.A.
Cost
Rs.2,000/-allowed as cost of the proceedings.
