SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint seeking to realize the excess amount remitted, compensation costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The first and 2nd complainant are husband and wife respectively. They are the members of the opp.party Bank. They have availed a term loan of Rs.1,00,000/- each, executing an agreement. as per the agreement the amount was to be repaid in 36 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.2,800/- each. The complainant has repaid a sum of Rs.20,408/- towards principal amount and Rs.4,564/- towards the interest on 15.11.1994. The 2nd complainant also remitted Rs.20,408/- towards the principle amount and Rs.4,564/- towards the interest on 15..11.1997. The balance loan amount on 15.11.1994 was Rs.79,592/- . Subsequently the complainant was given an opportunity to settle the loan under the one time settlement scheme on 1.6.2002. The complainant was compelled to remit Rs.79,592/- towards the principal amount and Rs.1,48,852/- towards the interest and Rs.15,825/- as penal interest, then Rs.150/- as cost and Rs.10,640/-. Accordingly to the first complainant has remitted a total sum of Rs.2,55,054/-. The second complainant has remitted a sum of Rs.48,960/- towards interest on 20.4.99 and a sum of Rs.9,500/- towards interest on 28.8.99. Besides the opp.party compelled to remit a sum of Rs.79,592/- being the balance of principal amount and Rs.95,505/- towards the interest and Rs.10,745/- as the penal interest and Rs.120/- as the charges of notice. Accordingly the 2nd complainant has remitted a sum of Rs.1,85,962/-. The opp.party has mislead the complainant to remit this huge amount as repayment of the loan and the complainant believing the statement furnished by the opp.party remitted the amount. At the time of availing the One Time Settlement the opp.party informed the complainant that in case of mistake in the account any amount collected in excess will be refunded.. After remitting the amount the complainant noticed the mistake in the statement and this was brought to the notice of the opp.party who assured that the excess amount will be refunded after the verification of the account. Thereafter the complainant filed an application before the opp.party seeking refund of the excess amount and thereupon the opp.party directed the complainant to file an application before the Joint Registrar, Kollam and the Joint Registrar after verification of the records informed the complainants that excess amount have been collected from the complainants which they are entitled to receive bank. However the opp.party did not make any attempt to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant which amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainants are the member of the opp.party bank. They have availed a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- each which was to be refunded in 36 instalment with interest at the rate of 17% per annum. The account shown in par a4 of the complaint is correct. Since the complainants defaulted repayment of loan arbitration proceedings were initiated and thereupon the complainants filed in OS No.205/99 before the Munsiff Court, Paravoor which was subsequently dismissed. The opp.party has every right to realize the amount due from the complainant The one time settlement was entered into on 1.6.2006. The complainants have applied for settlement under one time settlement and in pursuant to that the settlement was entered into and the complainants paid the amount after accepting the deduction as per the Government Circular No.9/06 The opp.party has received a sum of Rs.2,55,059/- from the first complainant and thereafter as per the circular No.9/06 interest and penal interest were deducted and a sum of Rs.54,356/-f was refunded as per the Voucher No.23-24 dated 1..6..2006 . The 2nd complainant has remitted a sum of Rs.1,85,962/- and after discounting the interest and penal interest amounting a sum of Rs.20,219/- which was accepted by the 2nd complainant as per the voucher No.21-22. after getting the total discount of Rs.84,575/-. The complainants have filed this complaint suppressing the receipt of the concessions as per the Circular No.9/06. The bank has realized the only which the bank is entitled to get as per the law. The averment that the complainants have filed a complaint before the Joint Registrar is false and hence denied. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties: 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P3 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D7 are marked. POINTS: There is no dispute that the complainants have availed loan from the opp.party bank and that the loans were closed under the One Time Settlement Scheme as per Ext. D7. It is also not disputed that the complainants paid the settled amount as per Ext.P2 and P3 receipts. It is also not in dispute that in the settlement the discount arrived at in respect of the loan availed by 1st complainant OL5/1374 was Rs.54,356/- and that in respect of the loan of the 2nd complainant OL 5/1375 was Rs.30,219/-. The grievance of the complainants is that though such a settlement was arrived at they were asked to remit the entire amount of Rs.244419/- evidenced by Ext.P2 and Rs.185962/- evidenced by Ext.P3 and that they were not given the discount of Rs.54356/- and Rs.30219/- respectively by the opp.party which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.party. According to the opp.party though the complainants have remitted the entire outstanding loan amount as per Ext.P2 and P3 the discounted amount of Rs.54356/- was given as per voucher No.23 and 24 and Rs.30219/- was given as per voucher No.21 and 22 respectively which have been accepted by the 2nd complainant evidenced by Ext. D2. However, the complainants would contend that they have not received the amount shown in Ext. D2 vouchers. DW.1 is the Secretary of the opp.party bank. In cross examination page 4 she has stated that at the time of one time settlement usually the amount after the discount will be collected and that receipt will be issued for the amount remitted in the counter. To a pointed question Ext.P2 series receipt H Kxx fkd dd\,jujH rjr\rkA ssde\emj Sul she answered Th\h . If that be so, one is at a loss to understand as to how Ext. P2 for Rs.244419/- and Ext.P3 for Rs.185962/- were issued from the counter. There is no explanation from DW.1 as to why the amount as perExts. P2 and P3 were not collected from the complainant. It is also pertinent to point out that the discount alleged to have been granted as per Ext. D2 voucher are not shown in Ext.P2 & P3. To another pointed question receipt H tqkfju fkd cash H Lmu\]nah\Shl? She answered Receipt Srlsmle\eA voucher Kn\smb\djH Ll fkd alYfA cash LvvlH afj;" Since the entire amount has been collected from the complainants evidenced by Ext.P2 and P3 it is obvious that there were no vouchers . To another question mj SgDYedlgA Stfk voucher YedlgA tr\rk SgDe\semkf\fjuj}kn\Sml ? she answered cash book H Ext. D6 H SgDe\semkf\fjuj}mn\mk. Voucher number Th\h In the next breath she would say cash book H voucher number SgDe\semkf\fjuj}kn\mk\. But there is no such voucher number in Ext. D6 such inconsistent versions raises doubts and the evidence of DW.1 cannot be believed for a momment. Ext. D2 cannot be said to be a voucher executed by the complainant for having received the discounted amount as per One Time Settlement. Ext. D2 voucher are not stamped vouchers even though the amounts alleged to have been paid exceeds Rs.5000/-. Therefore these vouchers cannot be treated as discharge vouchers for having received the discounted amount by the complainants. DW.1 in cross examination at page 9 last has stated that during OTS Scheme they used to prepare a statement showing Total amount due discount, balance to be remitted and such a statement has been lprepared in this case also but the same was not produced for reasons best known to opp.party DW.1 in cross examination page 4 stated OTS cauA Txik dqjv\vkxx fkd alYfSa ilb\blykxxk Then why a different procedure has been adopted in this case? No explanation is forthcoming . The conduct of opp.parties in collecting the discounted amount also is highly illegal. Ext. D2 vouchers which are intended for their accounts for showing adjustment of the discounted amount paid to the complainant is produced before this Forum to show re- payment of discounted amounts to the complainants. The irregularity is further fortified by the admission of DW.1 at cross page 5. Receipt H tqkfju fkd cash H Lmu\]nah\Shl? Receipt Srlsmle\eA voucher Kn\smb\djH LfkalYfA cash H Lmv\vlHafj . If that be so why the entire amount has been collected from the complainants?. When an amount is collected from a party it must come in the receipt side of cash book. Payments if any must be shown in the expenditure portion. No payment can be shown in the receipt side of cash book. There is considerable force in the contention that the opp.party has deliberately suppressed the expenditure side of the cash book. The contention that the opp.party directed the complainant to remit the entire amount assuring that the discounted amount will be disbursed later and thereafter denied payment cannot be ignored . Ext. D6 contains only the receipt side of the cash book. Ext. D6 further shows that the amounts collected from the complainants have been accounted as serial No. 44 and 45. But the relevant page regarding disbursement is not produced to show that the discounted amount has actually been disbursed to the complainants. If the complainants were given the discounted amount as per Ext. D2 where did they account the discount as per the OTS Scheme. No material is produced in this regard. When a lesser amount than what is actually due is collected the bank must account for it and the difference in the amounts would be adjusted by way of voucher. DW.1 has also admitted that usually the amount after the discounted amount alone will be collected. In such case the amount remitted plus the discount will give the actual amount due. But when the actual amount due from the party is collected it is not known as to how the OTS amount is accounted for in such cases. In such cases the amount remitted plus the OTS discount would be a higher amount. In such cases the excess amount collected can be refunded by discharge voucher. But that voucher cannot be considered as an adjustment voucher as well as discharge voucher. As pointed out earlier Ext. D2 cannot be considered as a discharge voucher as it is not a stamped receipt and the payment involved exceeds Rs.5000/- In the absence of such a voucher the case of the complainants that the OTS discounts were not refunded to them is quite probable and they are entitled to get that amount from the opp.parties with interest . From the evidence now before us we are of the view that there is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.parties. Points found accordingly. . In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.party to refund the complainant Rs.84,575/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.6.2006 till payment. Opp.parties are also directed to pay the complainants a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs. Dated this the 30th day of October, 2010. : I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Sulbath Beevi List of documents for the complainant P1. – Pass book P2. – Bill P3. – Receipt for Rs.1,85,962/- List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Subhashini List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Ledger copies D2. – Vouchers D3. – Statements D4. – Copy of complaint dt. 16.3.2006 D5. – One day settlement application D6. – Cash book attested copy D7. – Circular No.9/06 | 
