IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31st day of August, 2016
Filed on 11.08.2010
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.185/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Jose Sebastian 1. The Secretary, Card Bank A – 94
Mukkom, Chakkacham Pakka Muri Alappuzha – 688 001
Kuttanadu Taluk
(By Adv. J. Raveendranadhan Nair) 2. The Special Sale Officer
-do- -do-
(By Adv. Ashley Nair)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a remanded matter. The case was once heard and the President of the then Forum passed an order on 30.04.2011 allowing the complaint. Since there was no detailed order, Hon’ble State Commission suomoto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order. After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows:-
In the year 2002 the complainant availed two agricultural loans and one industrial loan from the Card Bank A – 94, Alappuzha. On 27.4.2006 a subsidy of Rs.96,000/- was granted to the complainant by the Khadi and Village Industries Board, Kerala. The amount was received by the first opposite party. It was adjusted in the above three loans without the consent of the complainant. In the year 2008 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme was introduced by the Government, but the complainant could not get the benefit of the scheme because of the closure of the agricultural loan in the year 2006. A lawyer’s notice was also given to the opposite party by the complainant.
On 30.4.2008 a reply notice was given by the opposite party stating false things. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is barred u/s 100 of the Co-operative Societies Act. It is true that complainant availed two agricultural loans (PH 102 and “Petty and Para” loan) and one industrial loan (NF – 3227) as stated in the complaint. However, all those loans were in arrears and the complainant is a chronic defaulter in repayment of those loans. It is true that Rs.96,000/- was received from Khadi and Village Industries as subsidy on6.12.2006. But on the very same date the complainant approached the Bank and requested and pleaded to the Bank to remit that subsidy amount in the above said three loan accounts since the complainant had defaulted in repaying all the said three loans and all three loans were in arrears. He insisted the Bank to utilize the subsidy amount to clear off the arrears in the industrial loan at the first instance and then the arrears in the “Petty and Para” loan and also to close loan No.PH 102 (which was comparatively for a lesser amount). He also requested the Bank to remit the balance amount in the subsidy, after the above said utilizations, as advance in the industrial loan. The complainant made these requests since he was well aware that all the above loans were in arrears at that time itself and that the Bank will foreclose those loans and initiate legal proceedings for recovery, unless the arrears are cleared off. He persisted upon the Bank officials by pleading that if the entire subsidy was remitted in the industrial loan account alone he had no other means to clear off the arrears in the other two loan accounts and he will be financially ruined. Owing to these entreaties of the complainant and in utmost good faith, the Bank remitted the subsidy amounts as per the direction of the complainant in the said loans on 6.12.2006 itself. PH 102 was closed fully and finally and the arrears as on that period in “Petty and Para” loan was cleared and the balance amount was advanced to the industrial loan No. NF-3227. The Bank issued receipts for the same and the complainant accepted those receipts also. The averment that the Bank divided the subsidy amount and remitted the same in three loan accounts without obtaining the consent of the complainant etc. are absolutely false and hence denied emphatically. Later on, 19.6.2007 the complainant remitted Rs.5,000/- to Industrial loan No.3227 further expressly ratifying and acknowledging the above said remittance in three loan accounts done upon his own direction, interest and insistence. Hence the complainant is stopped from denying or disputing the remittance of subsidy amount in the agricultural as well as industrial loan accounts. The complainant is also precluded by Law from claiming a legal benefit by making a willful omission of non-payment of loan amount.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. The first opposite party was examined as RW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. Point No.1:- One of the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant being a member of the opposite party society is not all a consumer and the dispute between him and the society is exclusively triable by the Registrar and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. As per the decision reported in 2011(1) KLT Page No.573, “Remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act are not in derogation of those provided under other laws and the said Act, supplements and not supplants jurisdiction of Civil Courts or other statutory authorities and (ii) a Co-operative society is a person that could be subjected to an action before C.D.R.F. by raising a consumer dispute.” By the above decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, the objection that the complaint is not maintainable and is barred u/s 100 of the Co-operative Societies Act is not sustainable. Hence the complaint is found maintainable.
7. Points No.2 and 3:- It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed two agricultural loans and one industrial loan from the opposite party. It is also an admitted fact that an amount of a subsidy of Rs.96,000/- was granted to the complainant on 27.4.2006 by the Khadi and Village Industrial Board, Kerala. According to the complainant, the opposite parties adjusted the subsidy amount in the three loan accounts without obtaining the consent of the complainant. The opposite parties denied this allegation and stated that they remitted the subsidy amount as per the direction of the complainant and closed loan No.PH 102 and “Petty and Para” loan was cleared and the balance amount was advanced in the industrial loan. The bank issued receipts for the same and the complainant accepted those receipts also. While cross examining the complainant, to the question put forwarded by the learned counsel of the opposite party, “6.12.2006- Xs¶ aq¶p temWn-tebv¡pw Xm¦Ä AS-¨-Xp-I-bpsS C\w Xncn¨v X¶n-«ps¶v ]d-bp¶p?” He answered that, “icn-bm-Wv.” Even though the complainant stated that he had filed complaint against that, before the opposite party he has not produced any evidence for the same. Moreover, the complainant also admitted that on 19.6.2007 he has remitted Rs.5,000/- towards industrial loan. Had the subsidy amount of Rs.96,000/- was remitted towards the industrial loan he should not have again remitted Rs.5,000/- on 19.6.2007. Apart from that, the admission from the complainant that he had received receipts for the remittance of the subsidy amount in the loan account on 6.12.2006 shows that the complainant had the knowledge about the disbursement of the subsidy amount. Hence the allegation of the complainant that the subsidy amount was adjusted in the loan account without the consent of the complainant is not proved. When the Debt Waiver Scheme came into being in the year 2008 by no stretch of imagination it can be said that on 6.12.2006 the opposite party bank deliberately divided the subsidy amount and closed the agricultural loan PH 102 and adjusted the other 2 loans. As per the scheme the loan was to remain unpaid till 29.2.2008, where as in this case the loan stood repaid on 6.12.2006. In such circumstances there was no question of waiver of loss under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme.
There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Jose Sebastian (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Declaration of Sale Officer
Ext.A2 - Proceedings
Ext.A3 - Reply notice dated 30.4.2008
Ext.A4 - Copy of the Tax receipt
Ext.A5 - Copy of the notice dated 2.6.2008
Ext.A6 - Copy of the Certificate dated 20.11.2006
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - T.N. Viswanadhan Pillai (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Advocate notice dated 18.4.2008
Ext.B2 - Office copy of the reply notice issued by the opposite party bank
Ext.B3 - Copy of the Ledger
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
