DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 9th day of July 2014
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
Date of filing :23/01/2014
(C.C.No.13/2014)
V.Chandran,
S/o.Venthappan Chettiar,
Swarna Bhavanam,
Muthassankadu, Kodumbu Post,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.M.Rajesh)
V/s
Secretary,
Palakkad Co-op.Agrl. and
Rural Development Bank Ltd.,
No.F1029. Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv.R.Rajan)
O R D E R
Order by Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:
Complainant availed a housing loan from opposite party bank in the year 1997. Period of loan was 20 years. The agreed interest rate was 9.5%. Upto 20/06/2000, complainant paid a total amount of Rs.1 lakh. Thereafter opposite party claimed 18% interest for which complainant was not amenable. Opposite party refused to accept the payments made by the complainant. Now the opposite party is trying to auction the property of the complainant. According to the complainant charging higher rate of interest and non receipt of payment amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite parties claims an amount of Rs.4,55,981/- as due amount from the complainant. According to the complainant opposite party has claimed higher interest. Hence the complaint.
Opposite party filed version contending the following:
That the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum due to lack of jurisdiction as the same is hit by Section 69 and 100 of Kerala Co-operative Society Act 1969. Further complainant is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the Sale Officer has not been made party in the petition. According to opposite party complainant alongwith 2 others have availed a loan of Rs.1,47,000/- from the opposite party’s bank for construction of a new house. As a security they have offered 0.6609 hectors of land in Kodumbu Village registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Palakkad. Complainant has agreed to repay loan alongwith interest @18% per annum in quarterly installments spanning over a period of 15 years. Interest rate has been reset to 13% w.e.f. 1/4/2004 as per a circular received from the apex bank. Since the complainant has committed default in repayment, the loan account has been foreclosed under section 19 of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Act and referred the same to the Sale officer to recover the liability in the loan by initiating coercive action. Complainant has not raised any objection to the correctness of the interest and amount so far. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party.
Evidence adduced consists of chief affidavit of both parties. Ext.A1 to A4 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
Issues for consideration
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite
party ?
2.If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Heard both parties.
Maintainability of the case before the Hon’ble Forum is already settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha 2004 CPJ 1 SC wherein it was held that Forum has jurisdiction to decide matters connected with Co-operative Societies.
Availing an amount of Rs.1,47,000/- is an admitted fact. The same was sanctioned in the year 1997. The definite allegations of the complainant is that opposite party contrary to the agreed rate of interest of 9.5% levied higher rate of interest i.e. 18%. As per Ext.B1 sanctioned letter it is seen that the agreed rate of interest is 18%. Opposite party has stated that interest rate was further reduced to 13% according to reconstruction of refinance rate by Nabard. Further allegation is regarding refusal to receive the payments made by the complainant. Admittedly complainant has paid only Rs.1 lakh upto the year 2000. The present complaint is filed in the year 2014. 14 years has elapsed. Now only complainant has come up with such an allegation. If at all opposite party has refused to accept payment complainant can very well opt for other modes of payment. Instead complainant has kept mum for all these years and has come up with a complaint when the property pledged was put on auction.
The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that at any cost it is un reasonable on the part of opposite party to levy double more than the total loan amount. At this juncture it is to be noted that not a single penny has been paid towards loan account from 2000 onwards. Statement of account has been produced by opposite party for perusal. Available evidence on record does not establish any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint dismissed. Order in I.A.41/2014 shall stand vacated.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 9th day of July 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Loan Pass Book
Ext.A2 – Post card issued by opposite party to the complainant on different
dates (4 nos)
Ext.A3 – Loan receipt dtd.30/06/2000 issued by opposite party to the
complainant
Ext.A4 – Paper publication
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Photocopy of loan sanction order of opposite party.
Cost allowed
No cost allowed.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
