DATE OF FILING :28/03/15
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 27th day of February 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 120/2015
Between
Complainant : 1 . Augusthy Augusthy,
Vadakkel (Machukuzhiyil)House,
Pannimattam P.O.,
Velliyamattam,
Thodupuzha.
2. Jojo Augustine,
Machukuzhiyil House,
Pannimattom P.O.,
Velliyamattom
( Both by Adv: K.M.Sanu)
And
Opposite Party : 1. The Secretary,
Velliyamattam Service Co-Operative Bank,
Pannimattam P.O.,
Velliyamattam.
2 . The President,
Velliyamattam Service Co-Operative Bank,
Pannimattam P.O.,
Velliyamattam.
3 . The Secretary (Joint Registrar),
Kerala Co-Operative Development
and Welfare Fund Board,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv: Kesari Krishnan Nair K., Adv.Anitha K.)
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The fact of the case that,
Complainant and his wife Jessy availed 2 personal loan for Rs. 50,000/- each from the first opposite party on 03/04/12. On 04/06/13, wife of the complainant was died. The complainant and his wife were members of the
(Cont...2)
-2-
first opposite party from 2008 onwards they were availing loan from the first opposite party and they renewed it regularly by remitting its principle amount and interest each year. For the continuation of this process they renewed the loan in the year 2012 and availed Rs.50,000/- each. At the time of renewal of the loan the first opposite party realized an amount of Rs.125/- in each loan as the Risk Fund Premium.
Before renewing the loan in the year 2013 the wife of the complainant was hospitalized and thereafter she died on 04/06/13, and also the complainant suffered heart disease in the year 2013 and he was admitted in ICU for 5 days in Koenchery Medical College Hospital. Due to this reason the complainant approached the first opposite party to settle the loan account from the benefit of Risk Fund Scheme and applied for the same. But the opposite parties are not turned up to do so. Thereafter the complainant approached the first opposite party so many times in each time opposite party informed that their application is under process. In the mean time the first opposite party initiated Arbitration Proceeding against the complainant and his deceased wife for the recovery of loan amount with interest and the complainant got its summons on 18/03/15. As per the notice, the first opposite party demanded Rs.71227/- in each loan. Even though the complainant submitted death certificate of his wife before the first opposite party, they issued notices in her name, without admitting the fact of death.
Complainant further averred that, as per the conditions of the Risk Fund established by the Government from 2008 onwards, in the event of death or fatal diseases that happened to the borrower of the Co-Operative Societies their loan will be covered under the Risk Fund Scheme to the extent of the 1.5 Lakhs of loan dues and co-operative societies shall close the loan account with the aid of the Risk Fund. As per this scheme it is the duty of the bank to include these borrowers in the Risk Fund.
In the case of the complainant, his wife died and he was suffered acute heart attack and due to these reasons their loans are eligible for covering under the risk fund scheme. Even though the complainant submitted proper records for this, the opposite parties not initiated any steps to collect the Risk Fund amount from the authorities and close the loan account. This act of the first opposite party is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
(Cont...3)
-3-
Against this the complainant approached the Forum and filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to close these two loans with the benefit of Risk Fund insurance also prays for other consequential reliefs.
On notice opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed detailed reply version. As per the contention of the reply version complainant impleaded Risk Fund authority as additional third opposite party. In the mean time complainant died due to heart diseases on 20/04/15 and as per application of his son, being the legal heir, his son Jojo Augustine is implead to prosecute the matter, as the legal heir of the deceased complainant.
In their reply version the first opposite party contended that the loan outstanding in the both the said loan as on date was R.75841/- and 75808/- respectively the complainant is having sufficient mean to repay the loan amount they are bound to close the loan with interest. At the time of availing loan, both these borrowers were not willing to remit the Risk Fund Premium and they stated it recordically. Hence this borrowers were not eligible for any Risk Fund benefit.
In their reply version the third opposite party contended that these opposite parties has no knowledge about the contention contained in the complaint. This opposite parties has not received any application or any documents showing that the deceased wife of the complainant is eligible for getting the Risk Fund.
Further contended that Risk Fund is a stationary scheme as per loan it is the duty of the opposite parties 1 and 2 to forward application to the opposite party with relevant records. After receiving notice from the Forum the third opposite party informed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to submit application if any, in the prescribed forms with relevant documents. The third opposite party further contended that the third opposite party is ready and willing to grant the permitted amount of Risk Fund, if the complainants are eligible for getting the same.
After the death of the original complainant on the counsel filed a petition for appointing his legal heir. The petition allowed and Jojo Augustine, son of the deceased complainant was impleaded and none of the opposite
(Cont...4)
-4-
parties objected for impleading him.
From the complainants side Ext.P1 (s) to Ext.P3 were produced and marked. Ext.P1(s) are the notice of the first opposite party bank and copy of Arbitration petition. Ext.P2 is the copy of death certificate of the wife of the original complainant. Ext.P3 is the copy of legal heir ship certificate issued by the village officer, Velliyamattam. No oral evidence adduced.
From the defence side, Asst. Registrar of the additional third opposite party and Secretary of the first opposite party were examined as DW1 and DW2 respectively, Ext.R1 to Ext.R6 were marked. Ext.R1 is the copy of demand promissory note executed by the wife of the original complainant, Ext.R2 is the bond, Ext.R3 is the letter given to the first opposite party bank by the deceased wife of the original complainant stating that she is not remitting the risk fund premium, Ext.R4 is the copy of loan application, Ext.R5 is the copy of loan details, Ext.R6 is the copy of circular dated 24/07/14.
Heard both side,
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The Point:- The main line of arguments put forwarded by the learned counsel for the complainant is that, it is the responsibility of the first opposite party to settle the loan of the original expired borrowers by adjusting the loan amount against the risk fund of the government that was established in the year 2008. He further pointed out that it is the primary duty of the first opposite party bank to include the loan of the complainant and his wife to the risk fund scheme in order to cover the liability of the both the borrowers. As per the pleading in the complaint, original complainant's wife was died in the year 2013 and complainant was suffered severe heart disease. Both this reasons are sufficient to grant risk fund benefit. As per the records both their loan dues are below rupees one lakh and the original complainant also died after filing this complaint. Thereafter on request the present complainant, being the legal representative of deceased, complaint, is allowed to continue the proceeding.
(Cont...5)
-5-
We had examined the entire materials on records and given a thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced before us. It is an admitted fact that the original complainant and his deceased wife availed two loans from the first opposite party bank and while the loans were pending original complainant's wife passed away and the complainant suffered serious heart disease. Pointing these reasons original complainant approached the first opposite party bank for closing the loans as per the guidelines and benefit of Co-Operative Risk Fund Scheme. But the opposite party bank denied his request on the reason that their loans were not included in the list as per Ext. R2 letter, allegedly given by the deceased wife of the original complainant. On perusing Ext.R2, we can see that it is a computer print and the contents of this letter shows that, the diseased Jessy, wife of the complainant was not interested to pay the premium of Risk Fund Scheme. On the basis of the record, the denied letter, the first opposite party excluded their loan, from Co-Operative Debt Relief Scheme. Along with the letter the opposite party produced some other documents, such as loan application, Demand Promissory Note, Surety bond etc. All these documents are signed by the diseased wife of the complainant. By comparing the signature of this documents with Ext.R2 letter, we can see that the signature that shown in Ext.R2 is entirely different from the signature of the deceased Jessy that shown in other documents such as Ext.R1, Ext.R3, Ext.R4 and Ext.R5. More over from the Ext.R2 it is seen that, deceased Jessy denied to remit an amount of Rs.50 to the minimum and Rs.250/- to the maximum for a risk coverage of Rs.1 Lakh of her loan, as the one time premium. On going through Ext.R1, Forum is of a considered view that these record is a forged one, and no one will deny to remit such a nominal amount for the coverage of huge sum, and this document is prepared by the first opposite party bank only to cover their deficiency in this matter and it cannot be admissible.
While on cross examination the DW2, none the Asst. Registrar cum Manager of the third opposite party specifically deposed that it is the duty of the first opposite party bank to include the loan in the Co-Operative Risk Fund Scheme. She further stated that through the deposition of the witnesses, we can see that in this matter there is gross deficiency is happened from the side of the first opposite
(Cont...6)
-6-
party bank and the first opposite party bank is solely liable for it, and no fault or deficiency is proved from the side of the third opposite party.
On the basis of the above said discussion, the Forum finds deficiency in service against the first and second opposite parties and hence the Forum directs the first and second opposite parties to close the pending loan dues as per the notice dated 18/03/15 having number DCBOL 569 dated 30/03/12, and DCBOL 565 dated 30/03/12 and set off the pending loan dues of the above said two loans and withdraw from the legal proceedings against the legal heirs of the said borrowers for realising the above loan dues. No order to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of February, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
(Cont...7)
-7-
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
Nil
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Sindhu C.K.
DW2 - Joji Sebastian
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The notice of the first opposite party bank and copy of Arbitration
petition.
Ext.P2 - The copy of death certificate of the wife of the original complainant
Ext.P3 - The copy of legal heir ship certificate issued by the village officer,
Velliyamattam.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - The copy of demand promissory note executed by the wife of the
original complainant
Ext.R2 - The bond
Ext.R3 - The letter given to the first opposite party bank by the deceased wife
of the original complainant stating that she is not remitting the risk
fund premium
Ext.R4 - The copy of loan application
Ext.R5 - The copy of loan details
Ext.R6 - The copy of circular dated 24/07/14.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
