SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
The brief of the complaint :
The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- from OP. In order to recover the loan amount the OP filed an EP.No.270/2017 before the Munsiff Court Taliparamba . The EP.No.270/2017 was in relation with ARC No.3332/2007 which was pending before the Assistant Registrar Taliparamba. The complainant had paid substantial amount to OP towards the loan liability in connection with the EP.No.270/2017 of Taliparamba Munsiff court. On 13/3/2018 the Hon’ble Munsiff court directed the complainant to make payment by monthly instalment of Rs.5000/- each to be paid on 5th day of every month and the execution petition is closed. After that the complainant was insisted to pay the balance amount directly to the bank. The complainant has already paid more than Rs.40,000/- towards the loan liability. Then the OP has been demanding the complainant to pay a huge amount in the loan liability. On 27/9/2020 the OP threatened the complainant that the OP would cause to be initiated coercive steps against the complainant. The act of OP, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint notice issued to OP. OP received the notice and appeared before the commission and filed his written version . The OP contended that on 14/8/2017 the OP filed an EP 270/2017 before Taliparamba Munsiff court for realisation of an amount of Rs.62,942/- with future interest @16% per annum against the complainant and 2 others. Then the complainant appeared before the Munsiff court Taliparamba on 31/10/2017. On that date he filed counter before the court. Then on 3/2/2018 he paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to OP and on 13/3/2018 he paid an amount of Rs.3000/- to OP. On 13/3/2018 the Hon’ble Munsiff court Taliparamba directed the complainant to make payment by monthly instalment of Rs.5000/- each paid on 5th day of every month and EP is closed for the time being with liberty to re-open the same in case of any default. But the complainant did not comply the direction of Hon’ble Munswiff court and the complainant have paid only 7 instalments of Rs.2000/- and 3,000/- each. As on 17/12/2020 the complainant had paid only Rs.31381/- towards the decree amount. The complainant is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.63,845/- to OP’s institution. The OP is guided by the statutes , rules and regulations issued by the authorities. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP , so the complaint may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and no documents produced from the side of complainant. On OP’s side no oral evidence adduced but 2 documents marked as Exts.B1&B2.
Issue No.1:
The Complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as PW1 by OP. In the evidence of PW1 he stated that “ തളിപ്പറമ്പ മുൻസിഫ് കോടതിയിൽ OP file ചെയ്ത execution petition ന്ർറെ വിഷയം തന്നെയാണ് ഈ കോടതിയിൽ പരാമർശിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള വിഷയം ? അതെ. On OP’s side 2 documents produced before the commission and marked as Exts.B1 & B2. In Ext.B1 is the certified copy of the order in EP.No.270/2017 of Munsiff Court Taliparamba. As per Ext.B1 the complainant to make payment by monthly instalment of Rs.5000/- to be paid on 5th day of every month and EP is closed for the time being with liberty to re-open the same in case of default. In the evidence PW1 also deposed that Ext.B1 പ്രകാരം നിങ്ങൾ 5000/- രൂപ per month അടച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടോ? ഇല്ല. കുറച്ച് തുക 2000/- 3000/- ഒക്കെ വച്ച് അടച്ചു. receipt ഇല്ല . 15/5/23 ന് നിങ്ങൾ 72094/- രൂപ society യിൽ അടയ്ക്കാൻ ബാക്കിയുണ്ട്? അറിയില്ല. ഈ വായ്പാ തുക അടയ്ക്കാൻ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടതാണ് ഈ കേസ്സിന് ആധാരം? അതെ. Moreover the OP produced the extract of the loan ledger in STNA 50 of Vinoy P.M(complainant) and that document is also marked as Ext.B2 in this case. In Ext.B2 clearly shows that the balance amount due as Rs.62,811/- . But the complainant has not produced any documents to prove that he already paid the availed loan amount. The OP is guided by statutes, rules and regulations issued by the authorities and there is no other option for the OP but to comply with those rules and regulations. So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence issue No.1 found in favour of OP and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2&3:
As discussed above due to the aforesaid deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP is not proved by the complainant. So the complainant is miserably failed to prove his case. Thus the issue Nos.2&3 are also found against the complainant.
Hence the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not proved the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OP. So the compensation and cost not allowed.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts:
B1-Certified copy of order in EP 270/2017 of Munsif court,Taliparamba.
B2- Extract of the loan ledger in STNA50 of complainant.
PW1-P.M.Vinoy- complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
