Kerala

Idukki

CC/10/152

K.S.Bhaskaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.V.C.Sebastian

30 Aug 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKIConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
Complaint Case No. CC/10/152
1. K.S.BhaskaranKollamparampil(H),Vellayamkudi.P.OIdukkiKerala2. Kamalakshi W/o BhaskaranKollamparampil(H),Vellayamkudi.P.OIdukkiKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. The SecretaryKattappana Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No.3738,kattappana South.P.OIdukkiKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE Sheela Jacob ,MemberHONORABLE Bindu Soman ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 30 Aug 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

DATE OF FILING : 20.07.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.152/2010

Between

Complainants : 1. K.S.Bhaskaran,

Kollamparambil House,

Vellayamkudy P.O,

Kattappana, Idukki District.

2. Kamalakshi W/o Bhaskaran,

Kollamparambil House,

Vellayamkudy P.O,

Kattappana, Idukki District.

(Both by Adv: V.C.Sebastian)

And

Opposite Party : The Secretary,

Kattappana Service Co-operative Bank

Limited No.3738,

Kattappana South P.O,

Idukki District- 685 515.

O R D E R

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) 

The petitioners are husband and wife. They took an agricultural loan from the opposite party bank. Due to natural calamity and crop failure, they cannot repay the loan in time. In 2004 the loan became default. They approached the Hon'ble Farmers Debt Relief Commission for redressal. Both the complainants had taken loan of Rs.8,448/- each. They obtained order from the Hon'ble Farmers Debt Relief Commission on 9.09.2009. As per the order, the loan amount of the Ist complainant is Rs.8,448/-, out of that amount the commission fixed Rs.8,200/- as loan amount, Rs.6,000/- was taken over by the Government and the balance amount will be repaid by the complainant within one year. In the loan amount of the 2nd complainant Rs.5,500/- was taken over by the Government and the balance amount shall be repaid by the complainant within one year. That was the order of the Hon'ble Debt Relief Commission dated 9.09.2009. As per the order both the petitioners had to pay Rs.5,000/- to the bank. They were ready to pay the amount, but the opposite party bank refused the payment. They demanded the interest of the loan from 2008. Complainants had sent lawyer notice to the opposite party, the opposite party received the notice and sent reply notice to the complainants demanding the interest amount also. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complaint is filed before the Forum. 

2. Inspite of notice from the Forum, the opposite party was absent. No written version filed. So the opposite party is called exparte. 

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 complainants are entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainants. 

5. The POINT :- In the part of the complainants, the Ist complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked. Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 are the orders of the Hon'ble Farmers Debt Relief Commission. Ext.P3 is the copy of the legal notice issued by the complainants to the opposite party bank. Ext.P4 is the AD card of Ext.P3. The Hon'ble Farmers Debt Relief Commission is a judicial authority, so we think that it is not proper to interfere the orders. Complainants can approach to the proper authority for execution of Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 orders. We find deficiency of service in the act of the opposite party only on the refusal of payment. With an intention to close the loan, the complainants had sent lawyer notice to the opposite party but the opposite party never accepted the payment and they demanded the interest of loan from 2008. 

So the petition partially allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition to the petitioners within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2010

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainants :

PW1 - K.S.Bhaskaran

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainants:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Final Order in Application No.260689/08/ID of the Ist complainant, before the Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Final Order in Application No.260704/08/ID of the 2nd complainant, before the Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Lawyer Notice dated 15.06.2010 issued by the advocate of the complainants to the opposite party

Ext.P4 - AD Card of Ext.P3 lawyer Notice

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


[HONORABLE Sheela Jacob] Member[HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Bindu Soman] Member