SMT. G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT.
Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for getting refund of the excess amount received by the opp.party from the complainant alleging deficiency in service by receiving excess amount from the complainant
Complainant’s case is that, on 7..11.2003 the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- [6 lakhs] from the opp.party bank upon the security of his property having an extent of 4.15 Are and a building therein, that the loan was sanctioned on condition to repay the same with 14% interest, that owing to adverse circumstances, due payment could not be made and hence there was accumulated arrears, that the bank filed arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator under the Co-Operative Societies Act vide ARC NO.127/2007 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.9,16,983/- including interest of Rs.2,19,183/-, that the arbitrator arbitrarily passed an exparte award for the recovery of Rs.9,16,983/- with interest at the rate of 14% for the principle amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, that the complainant took up the matter in Revision before the Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, that the Tribunal was pleased to modify the order allowing the complainant bank to realize a sum of Rs.7,16,983 with 12% interest per annum on Rs.6,00,000/-, that in the Revisional Order the Tribunal also allowed to pay the debts in 7 equal instalments within one year but due to the pressure exerted by the Bank complainant remitted a total sum of Rs.10,45,955/- including Rs.2,00,000/- paid during the pendency of the Revision, that the grievance of the complainant is that as per the order of the Tribunal he is liable to pay Rs.7,16,983/- with 12%interest for the principle sum of Rs. 6 lakhs which would come to Rs.8,24,983/- whereas he remitted a total sum of Rs.10,45,955/- and hence this complaint to refund the excess amount alleging deficiency in service by receiving excess amount from the complainant. .
Opp.party filed version admitting the availing of loan by the complainant and the passing of the award by the Arbitrator and the filing of the Revision before the Co-Operative Tribunal, and contending that pursuant to the Revision Petition the complainant has remitted Rs.2,00,000/- in loan account on 28..3..2008 and he has closed the loan account on 2..9..2008 by remitting Rs.8,45,955/-, that the Revision petition was partly allowed and a judgement from the Co-operative Tribunal was obtained on 31..10..2008, that in the judgement the Co-operative Tribunal ordered to deduct Rs.2,00,000/- which he has remitted on 28..3..2008 from the plaint amount of Rs.9,16,983/- and to realize Rs.7,16,983/- with 12% interest per annum on Rs.6,00,000/- and the Revision Petitioner is allowed to pay the amount in 7 equal instalments within one year, that the opp.party bank only received the amount remitted by the complainant as per the award in ARC No.127/07, that there is no deficiency in service, default or unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.party, that the title deed deposited with the head office of the bank also released to the complainant and even at that time there was no demand for repayment on the part of the complainant and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost of the opp.party.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the opp.party has committed any deficiency in service by receiving excess amount from the complainant ?
2. Reliefs and costs?
For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Exts. P1 to P7
For the opp.party DW.1 was examined and marked Exts. D1 to D9
THE POINTS
In this case complainant was examined as PW.1. He would swear before the Forum in tune with the allegations in the complaint. Admittedly the complainant availed a Cash Credit Loan of Rs, 6,00,000/- from the opp.party Bank upon the security of his property having an extent of 4.15 Ares and a building therein on 7.11.2003 on condition to repay the same with 14% interest per annum within a period of 1 year and the loan amount become overdue and the bank was constrained to initiate arbitration proceedings on 13..9.2006 and the arbitrator passed Ext. D6 award on 26..3..2007.. It is also the admitted case of the parties that against Ext. D6 award complainant filed RP before the Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext. D7 and Ext.P1 are the copy of the order of the Co-operative Tribunal in R.P. 7/2008. It is dated 31..10..2008 . On going through the order of the Co-operative Tribunal it can be seen that after hearing both sides the Revision Petition is allowed in part and the award is modified allowing the bank to realize an amount of Rs.7,16,983/- with 12% interest per annum on Rs.6,00,000/- from the date of suit till realization. The Revision Petitioner [complainant] is allowed to pay debt in 7 equal installments within a period of 1 year from the date of the order but before the disposal of the RP the complainant closed the transactions on 2..9..2008 by remitting Rs.8,45,955/- apart from Rs.2,00,000/- he has already remitted on 28..3..2008 as per the Interim Order in Revision. Thereafter complainant issued Ext.P3 notice to the bank requesting to refund the excess amount of Rs.3,28,852/- realized against the order in RP. Ext. P4 is an advocate notice reiterating the same, Ext.P5 is acknowledgement card, Ext. P6 is a letter from bank to the complainant calling upon him to produce copy of the order in RP, Ext.P7 is letter from Bank to the complainant stating that the loan transaction already closed and thereafter complainant has not claimed any refund. Ext. D8 is the copy of Ext.P6. In this case it is pertinent to note that even though the cash credit loan closed on 2..9..2008 neither the complainant nor the opp.party brought it to the notice of the Kerala State Co-operative Tribunal during the argument stage. It is true that as per the order in RP the award is modified allowing the bank to realize an amount of Rs.7,16,983/- with 12% interest per annum on Rs.6,00,000/- from date of suit till realization and cost from the complainant and his assets and the complainant is also allowed to pay the debt in 7 equal instalments within a period of one year. But he has remitted the amount as per Ext.D6 award on 2..9..2008 . Then it is true that he has remitted excess amount. But the only question to be considered here is whether the bank has committed deficiency in service at the time of receiving the amount. So far as the facts and circumstances of this case is concerned on receiving the amount and closing the transaction the bank has not committed any deficiency in service. Thereafter also there is no documentary evidence to show that the bank is not ready to refund the amount. Ext.P6 shows that on 15..6..2009 bank has issued a letter to the complainant calling upon him to produce a copy of the RP for taking further steps. In Ext.P7 also the bank has informed him that after closing the transaction he has not presented any requests for refund. Following the above discussion we have no hesitation to safely conclude that in receiving the excess amount as per the arbitration award dated 26..3..2007 there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost;
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2012.
I n d e x
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. Basheerkutty
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Award of Co-operative Tribunal in RP 7/08
P2. – Cash credit statement
P3. – Notice dated 23..3..2009
P4. – Advocatenotice
P5. – Acknowledgement card
P6. – Notice dated15..6..2009
P7. – Reply notice dated 28..5..2009
List of witnesses for the opp.party
DW.1. – Suresh Babu
List of documents for the opp.party
D1. – Intimation Memo
D2. – Copy of CC Account
D3 – Copy of account ledger
D4. – Copy of Registered notice dated 3..9..2006
D5. – Copy of Plaint before ARC
D6. – Copy of Award of ARC
D7. – Judgement in RP.No.7/2008
D8. – Copy of Registered notice dated 28..5..2009
D9. – Copy of registered notice dated 15..6..2009. –
