IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:            President

K.P.Preethakumari:                  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:                        Member

Dated this,  the 2 ^nd day of January,  2009

C.C.No.184/07

P.Raji,

D/o Raghavan,

Naduvil,                                                           :                       Complainant

Kunnumbram House,

P.O.Varam, Kannur.

Vs.                                                                              

The Secretary,

Valiyannur Service Co-operative Bank,              :                      Opposite Party:

P.O.Varam,Kannur.

O R D E R

Smt.M.D.Jessy, Member.

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to adjust the excess interest of Rs.4016/- collected by the Opposite Party towards the principal amount due on the loan availed by the Complainant.

The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is having membership

bearing No.2271 with the Opposite Party and she availed a loan of  Rs.50,000/- from the Opposite Party under loan No.MTNR 231.  There was some arrears in the said loan and on 20.09.04 the Opposite Party issued a notice to the employee of the sureties of the Complainant’s loan directing to collect Rs.1000/- each per month from their salary.  In that notice it was shown that the principal amount due from the Complainant is Rs.13,220/- and interest as on date is Rs.1400.  On 30.10.04 when the Complainant remitted an amount of Rs.6000/- towards the loan arrear instead of adjusting Rs.1400/- the Opposite Party collected Rs.5416/- towards interest.  Hence the Complainant alleges that an amount of Rs.4016/- was collected by Opposite Party towards interest in excess from what is shown in the notice issued by the Opposite Party dtd. 20.09.06.   Hence the excess interest of Rs.4016/- collected by the Opposite Party is to be adjusted towards the principal due from the Complainant.  This caused deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

            On receipt of the above complaint notice was issued to Opposite Party.  Opposite Party appeared and filed version contenting that the Complainant availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- under account No.MTNR 231 from the Opposite Party  on 30.06.2000,  The Complainant along with sureties executed loan agreement in favour of Opposite Party agreeing to repay the said loan amount with interest at the rate of 17% per annum in 60 monthly installments.  It is also stipulated in the agreement that in case of default in repayment, the loan will carry on overdue interest at the rate of 3%.  Opposite Party alleges that the Complainant was a chronic defaulter and even though several notices were issued to the Complainant, the arrears were not cleared.  Hence on 20.09.04 the Opposite Party sent a recovery notice to the employers of the sureties to directing to attach Rs.1000/- each from their salary.  The contention of the Opposite Party is that due to a clerical mistake instead of calculating the due interest from 15.05.03 they have shown interest only from 15.05.04 in the recovery notice.  At the time of making payment by the Complainant on 30.10.04 this omission of calculating 1 year interest was properly explained with records to the Complainant.  The Opposite Party has not collected any excess amount from the Complainant as interest.  The Complainant is trying to make gain out of a clerical mistake happened while issuing the recovery notice.  There is no bona fides in the allegation of the Complainant and there is no deficiency of service.

From the above contentions the following issues were raised for consideration.

1.      Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in the loan transaction with the Complainant?

2.      Whether the Complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed?

3.      Relief as cost?

The evidence of the Complainant consisting of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 marked.  No oral evidence was adduced on the side of Opposite Party.  Exts.B1 to B6 were marked.

Issue 1 to 3:

            The fact that the Complainant availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the Opposite Party under loan account No.MTNR 231on 30.06.00 is admitted by the Complainant.  The Complainant also not disputed the execution of loan agreement.  Hence the Complainant is liable to pay the loan amount with interest as stipulated in the agreement.  The Complainant admits that before making the disputed payment on 30.10.04 she paid an amount of Rs.12,600/- to the loan account.  .  The payment made by the Complainant on 15.05.03 id evidenced by the Complainant while cross examination.  Ext.B1 receipt shows that the Complainant pai8d an amount of Rs.2773/- towards interest till 15.05.03.  Hence at the time of making disputed payment on 30.10.04, the Complainant has to pay interest for the loan amount from 15.05.03,  But in the Ext.A1 recovery  notice the interest shown is only Rs.1400/-.  The calculation made by the Opposite Partyin Ext.A2 receipt is found tally with the Ext.B6 loan ledger.  There is no case by the Complainant that the Opposite Party has collected interest in excess from what is stipulated in the loan agreement.  The Complainant also admitted that she had not paid the interest for the period 15.05.03 to 15.05.04 before making the payment on 30.10.04.  The grievance of the Complainant is only that after showing Rs.1400/- towards interest in the recovery notice dtd. 20.09.04 the Opposite Party collected Rs.5416 towards interest.  It is clear from the above facts that the interest shown in the Ext.A1 notice is not collect and this can only be considered as a clerical mistake as contented by the Opposite Party.  The Complainant without even issuing a notice for the Opposite Party for clarifying the position straightaway filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  In the above circumstances we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party in the loan transaction with the Complainant.

            Since it is found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in the loan transaction with the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint.  The issues 1 to 3, thus, answered against the Complainant.

In the result, the Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

President                                        Member                                   Member

A P P  E  N D I X

Exhibits for the complainant:

Ext.A1:  Form No.IX issued to the employer of sureties.

Ext.A2:  Receipt dtd.  30.10.04 issued by O.P..

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

Ext.B1:  Copy of Receipt No.08449 dtd.15.05.03 issued to Complainant.

Ext.B2:   Bond executed by the Complainant.

Ext.B3: Regd. Letter No.727 with ack.due.

Ext.B4:  Copy of Form No.IX issued to the employer of sureties

Ext.B5:   Acknowledgement.

Ext.B6:   Loan Ledger                                     

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1:  P.Raji

Witness examined for the Opposite Party:   Nil

//Forwarded by Order//

Senior Superintendent