DATE OF FILING: 22.06.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No. 141/2011

Between

Complainant : James Cheriyan,

Kalappurackal House,

Kalayanthani P.O,

Thodupuzha

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : The Secretary, Alakkodu Service Co-operative Bank

Limited,

Kalayanthani P.O,

Thodupuzha

Idukki District.

(By Advs: T.J.Augustine & M.M.Lissy)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant availed a loan of Rs.2 lakhs as ordinary loan and Rs.20,000/- as agricultural loan from the opposite party. The interest for the ordinary loan was 12% and the other was 7%. Due to destruction in agriculture and low market value of the crops the complainant was not able to repay the loan promptly. The opposite party intimated the complainant that there is OTS facility as per the circular of the Kerala Government, the complainant can avail this facility by avoiding hike interest rate and penal interest and a statement of account was also issued by the opposite party accordingly. But when the complainant approached the bank for repayment of the same as per the statement delivered by the opposite party, the opposite party demanded more than 10% of the amount as per the calculation. The complainant approached the bank on the last day of the termination of the scheme, that is on 28.02.2011. So the complainant was constrained to pay the said 10% amount also to the opposite party in order to avail the OTS facility of the opposite party. The scheme introduced by the opposite party to the complainant was "Sahakarana Navarathnam Keraleeyam – Nashta Nivaranam Keraleeyam – Sathasathamanam Keraleeyam – 2011" . So the original benefit of the scheme was not at all availed by the complainant because of the act of the opposite party. The opposite party charged an amount of Rs.13,500/- other than the amount delivered by them as per the calculation. The opposite parties are not entitled to get that amount. So this petition is filed for getting back the amount paid by the complainant and also for compensation.

2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant availed Rs.20,000/- as agricultural loan and Rs.2,00,000/- as ordinary loan for the purpose of repaying his earlier debt. Both the loans were availed on 7.02.2007 and they were due on 7.02.2008 onwards. Even several notices were issued to the complainant for repayment of the loan, it was not done by the complainant. The loan was rescheduled on 28.02.2011 with an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. As per the circular issued by the Government on 23.12.2010 as No.63/10, clause 2 states that "

".So the opposite party is entitled to demand 10% of the interest as establishment charges as per clause 2 of the circular and also as per the direction of the Director Board of the society. The complainant received an amount of Rs.4,128/- as deduction in the interest rate. Penal interest, Notice charges etc. were exempted in the loan account of the complainant while calculating the final amount. So this petition is filed only without understanding clause 2 of the circular that the opposite party can avail 10% of the interest as establishment charges. The interest for the ordinary loan was 12.5% and when it was rescheduled, it was increased to 13%. But as per the circular the interest rate was reduced as 12.5% while it was rescheduled. So this petition is not at all maintainable.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT :- The complainant deposed as PW1. PW1 stated that he availed an ordinary loan of Rs.2,00,000/- with an interest of 12% and an agricultural loan of Rs.20,000/- with an interest of 7%. It is also admitted that he was not able to repay the loan amount because of the destruction in agriculture and low market value of the crops. As per the notice issued by the opposite party about the '

' the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the OTS benefit. The notice issued by the opposite party describing the same is marked as Ext.P1. Eventhough the opposite party delivered that interest, penal interest and other charges will be decreased for the settlement of the loan under OTS scheme, while the complainant approached the opposite party, they charged an amount more than 10% of the original calculated amount. So the complainant was not able to receive the benefits as per the scheme issued by the Kerala Government. The opposite party charged Rs.13,500/- other than the calculated amount. Ext.P2(series) are the receipts issued by the opposite party while the complainant repaid the entire loan amount. So the opposite party is not entitled to receive such an amount from the complainant. The opposite party deposed as DW1. The circular No.63/2010 issued by the Government "Kudissika Nivaranam – Sathasathamanam Kealeeyam 2011” dated 23.12.2010 is marked as Ext.R1. As per clause 2 of the circular, the opposite party can demand interest and 10% of the interest as establishment charges with the loan amount by avoiding penal interest, notice charges and other expenses while settling the loan account.
 

The only dispute is that the opposite party charged Rs.13,500/- from the complainant as 10% of the interest as establishment charges, for which the opposite party is not entitled to get that amount. While the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the statement of account of the loan as per the scheme of the Government, the opposite party never delivered about the establishment charges. On the last day of the termination of the scheme, while the complainant approached the opposite party for closing the loan, the opposite party charged 10% of the interest as establishment charges, that is, Rs.13,500/-. But as per the opposite party, the circular issued by the Government, which is Ext.R1 itself shows that the opposite party can demand interest and 10% of the interest as establishment charges, which is stated in clause 2 of the circular dated 23.12.2010. So that the opposite party charged Rs.13,500/- from the complainant.
 

The complainant never paid any amount to the opposite party after availing the loan as Rs.2,20,000/-. But the complainant received the OTS facility as per the Government circular. The complainant never produced any evidence to show that the opposite party charged hike interest. So we think that there is no deficiency has been proved against the opposite party. The opposite party has done as per the circular issued by the Government.
 

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2011

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER
) 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - James Cheriyan

On the side of Opposite Party :

DW1 - Shaju.M.Jose

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Notice describing about the “Sahakarana Navaratnam Keraleeyam -

Nashta Nivaranam Sathasathamanam Keraleyam - 2011”

Ext.P2(series) - Receipts(4 Nos) dated 28.02.2011 issued by the opposite party

On the side of Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Circular No.63/2010 as Kudissika Nivaranam Sathasathamanam – Keraleeyam 2011