SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  seeking direction against the  OPs to pay Rs.10,000/-  towards the loss of benefit under special scheme and also pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

Complaint in brief :-

    According to the complaint,  the complainant is an agriculturist  and on 2019, he availed a special loan scheme for  farmers from Kerala Gramin Bank,Karuvanchal(KCC) with 4% interest and  complainant  renewed the scheme every year to obtain 4% interest facility.  The  loan renewed every year as per the intimation from bank through postal department(OPs).  But unfortunately complainant couldn’t renew the  loan of present year as he  couldn’t receive any intimation from postal department and thereby the loan changed into non-agricultural loan category with 7% interest.  Hence, the complainant had to pay Rs.2900/- extra towards the loan.  On enquiry complainant  found that bank sent notice on  14/1/2022 to renew the loan before 9/2/2022 which was not received by complainant from  postal department(OPs).  Therefore complainant lost the benefit of 4% interest loan scheme  because of the  deficiency in service from OPs and hence this complaint.

        After filing this complaint, commission  sent notice  to  both OPs .  Both  OPs  entered appearance before the commission and filed their version accordingly.

Version of   OPs in brief:

    The OPs denied  the entire averments stated  in the complaint.  The OPs stated that they have no knowledge  whether any letter or notice received in the address of  complainant.  Furthermore, OPs contended that they have  delivered their service properly till this date.  The complaint has filed by complainant to gain  unjust enrichment only and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

       Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of  OPs?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The  complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A4,  Ext.A1 is the certificate issued by Kerala Gramin Bank to complainant dtd.5/4/2023(marked with subject to proof).  Ext.A2 is the complaint sent by complainant to  postal superintendent. Ext.A3 is the copy of bank statement(marked with subject proof) and Ext.A4 is the copy of bank pass book.  The complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1. 2^nd OP examined as DW1.  No  document  from the side of  OPs.  Both parties  filed  argument note.

     Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidence filed before the commission to answer the issues framed.  Let us peruse Ext.A1 dtd.5/4/2022 issued by Kerala Gramin Bank, Karuvanchal branch to complainant(marked with objection) stating the type of loan availed by complainant and the due date  ie 9/2/2022 and also stated that complainant has lost his agricultural subsidy because of the non receival of notice which was sent by bank on 14/1/2022 to complainant.  It is clear that the date of the certificate is 5/4/2022.  The main averment of complainant is that he lost the subsidy due to the non-delivery of notice sent by bank by 1^st OP and  he also stated that bank has the evidence that the letter was sent by them on 14/1/2022.  Unfortunately no bank ledger called for or no bank officials adduced evidence before the commission to show that the letter was properly sent except a  mere statement by complainant.  Secondly , during the cross examination of PW1, OP put a specific question that “2021 February 9ന് പുതുക്കുന്ന സമയത്ത് 2022-ൽ പുതുക്കേണ്ട തീയ്യതി നിങ്ങൾക്ക് അറിയാമായിരുന്നോ? അറിയാം , 2022  February 9^th .This was the answer of PW1.  Moreover , he also deposed that he hadn’t visited the bank until February 9^th  but on February 18^th.  At that time PW1 not renewed his loan until March.  Furthermore, PW1 deposed that he got the  intimation from bank manager regarding the despatch of letter and also deposed that bank has a ledger book and on 14/1/2022, bank sent letters to 18 persons, but it was neither produced before the commission nor PW1 took any steps to call for the ledger or to examine the bank official concerned to prove his averment.  Let us look into the Ext.A3 which is also marked as subject to proof, an amount of Rs.2900/- was debited  due to the loss of subsidy , is seen from Ext.A3.

    But, here the deficiency in service of postal department ie OPs are in question and no clear evidence produced by complainant  to prove the deficiency in service from the side of OPs.  The complainant can call for the ledger to prove that the bank has sent letter to complainant on 14/1/2022 which he failed to prove.  Hence the commission came into a consideration that there is no solid evidence to produced by complainant to prove the deficiency  from the part of OPs and  thereby the complaint is dismissed with no compensation and cost.

      In the result the complaint is dismissed , no cost.

Exts:

A1-Certificate issued by Kerala Gramin Bank to PW1 dt.5/4/23

A2-complaint sent by PW1 to Postal superintendent

A3-Copy of Bank account statement

A4-copy of bank pass book

PW1-Sasidharan Nair P.N-complainant

DW1-Anil Jose-2^nd OP

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR