SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) The complainant's husband has deserted the complainant and so she is living with her only son. The complainant had a loan of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite party's bank. The complainant has some urgent need of money and approached the opposite party for getting an additional loan and the opposite party agreed to give loan to the complainant. The opposite party sanctioned the same. The complainant's husband also had a loan from the very same bank, but he had left the place without closing the loan. The complainant neither took any loan nor was surety for the loan for her husband. When the complainant's loan was sanctioned, she received only Rs.3,313/-. Then the complainant enquired about the same, the opposite party told that they had appropriated the balance loan amount for clearing off the debt of the complainant's husband. Appropriation of the complainant's loan amount, for repaying the complainant's husband's liability without the knowledge or consent of the complainant is the deficiency in service of the opposite party. The opposite party have no right to appropriate the loan amount to pay off the complainant's husband's liability. The complainant's husband deserted her 8 years back and the matter was known to the Secretary of the opposite party. The complainant was no way a party to the transaction of the complainant's husband with the opposite party bank. The complainant's husband took the loan without the knowledge of the complainant. Sri.Kunjeppu, Valayamplackal and Kathrina, Valayamplackal were the sureties of the loan. Hence the opposite party has no locus standi to appropriate the loan amount sanctioned to the complainant towards the loan of the complainant's husband. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complaint has been filed for getting compensation under various heads. 2. The opposite party appeared and filed a written statement stating that there is no cause of action for the complainant against the opposite party. The complainant is a member of the opposite party, bank as Membership No.8327 and the complainant has given the right to file the complaint before a separate forum created for redressing disputes in co-operative Societies under Section 69(1)(b), Section 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. So the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant had a loan in the opposite party's bank for Rs.2,000/-. Again the complainant availed another loan of Rs.8,000/- from the opposite party's bank. At the time of availing the loan, the complainant was aware that her husband had availed a loan and was pending in the very same bank. As per law prevailing in the bank, the bank can realise the loan amount of the husband from the wife and viceversa if the amount is not paid by the debtor. And also the right to proceed against the successors of the loanee. The husband of the complainant had availed a loan, the loan was not repaid by her husband and a case was filed before the Bank Assistant Registrar. An award was passed from there against the complainant's husband. Afterwards an execution petition was pending against the husband of the complainant. The same matter was intimated to the complainant at the time of availing the loan. The husband and wife were residing in the same address and it is told by the opposite party to the complainant that if the pending loan of her husband is repaid by One Time Settlement Scheme, the bank will reduce Rs.1,745/- from the entire amount. The fresh loan applied by the complainant can be sanctioned then only. The same was agreed by the complainant and the complainant received another loan of Rs.8,000/-. At the same time the complainant herself paid Rs.4,418/- to the opposite party bank, in order to close the loan amount of her husband. If there was any dispute against the same, the complainant ought to have filed a complaint before the bank Director Board or bank President. Nothing was done by the complainant at the same time. So the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. 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 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1(series) marked on the side of the opposite party. 5. The POINT :- The complainant availed a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party's bank. There was a prior loan of Rs.2,000/- was pending from the part of the complainant. There was another loan in due in the opposite party's bank in the name of her husband. The bank sanctioned the loan to the complainant, due amount of the husband's loan was cleared and the complainant got only Rs.3,313/-. The opposite party in the written version, it is admitted that they have cleared the debt of her husband from the sanctioned amount of the complainant. Ext.R1 series is the receipt produced by the opposite party to show the same. As per the evidence of PW1, her husband deserted her 8 years back and she is living separately. The loan availed by both the husband and wife are not sanctioned by the security of any property. The loan availed by the husband was with the security of two sureties. One of the surety is alive now and the other is no more. Anyway, the bank did not take any steps against the surety of the complainant's husband in order to repay the loan. The bank was also aware that the husband is living separately from her and she is making her daily bread by working as a coolie. The opposite party in their written version and as per the evidence of DW1, it is stated that the bank has the right to realise the due amount of the debt from the other sources. Also stated that the complainant's husband's debt was realised only by way of One Time Settlement scheme which was agreed by the complainant. But there is no application was given for OTS by the complainant before the opposite party. Ext.P1 is the receipt from the opposite party which is of Rs.4,418/- realised from the complainant. The husband and wife are living separately and the wife was not aware of the loan due of the husband, at the time of availing her loan. So it is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party to recover the amount from the wife without her permission even without initiating any procedure against the sureties of the husband. So we think it is fit to give back the amount recovered from the complainant for the debt of her husband to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of availing the loan that is 31.05.2006 as per Ext.P1 and also Rs.1,000/- as costs of this petition. In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to give Rs.4,418/- to the complainant with 12% interest from 31.05.2006 and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the Ist day of July, 2008
......................Laiju Ramakrishnan ......................Sheela Jacob
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
