R.Vijayakumar, Member
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite party to provide service to the complainant as per Circular No.22/99 issued by Co-operative Registrar and not to realize loan amount and interest from the complainant until further orders from the Co-operative Registrar’s office. The complainant prayed for compensation and other reliefs also.
(2)
Briefly stated facts of the case is that the complainant who belongs to paraya caste (SC) availed a loan for an amount of Rs.30,000/- bearing loan A/c.No.CSOL No.912/06 from opposite party bank. He was defaulted in repayment due to some financial difficulties. In the meantime the Co-operative Society Registrar Office, decided not to realize the loan amount and interest from the members who belongs to SC and ST. Hence the complainant filed application before Chief Minister of kerala to write off his debt. As the matter was communicated to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies they sent letters to the complainant in which it is stated that the complainant also is a beneficiary as per the above said circular and the loan amount will not be realized until further orders. It is also informed that the matter was communicated to the opposite party also. But the opposite party is making hasty steps to recover loan amount and its interest from the complainant issuing notice intimating that they are going to file suit against the complainant to realise the loan amount. The complainant approached the opposite party on 20/07/10 and stated that he is also having right to get benefit of Circular No.22/09. But the opposite party is not accepting his demand and stated that they will realize the loan amount.
The opposite party is bound to provide available service to the complainant. But they are suppressing the genuine service. The act of opposite party is deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting compensation.
The opposite party filed version contending the allegations raised by the complainant. The complaint is not maintainable in the Forum. It is true that the complainant had availed loan for Rs.30,000/- on 25/03/2006. Circular No.22/09 is not binding on the complainant’s
(3)
loan and the opposite party is not liable to give any benefit to the complainant covered by this Circular. Benefit as per Circular No.22/09 can be given to those loans which have become arrears before 31.03.06. The averments in respect of the letter issued from the Joint Registrar that he is one of the beneficiaries and the loan amount and interest will not be realized from the complainant till further order etc – are fully false. Actually Joint Registrar reported that complainant’s application could be taken into consideration only on the basis of the order from the Financial Department. But no such report was received yet. Hence the opposite party is unable to provide any benefit to the complainant and the opposite party is entitled to recover loan amount with interest from the complainant.
The complainant defaulted in repayment of loan. Even though the opposite party sent periodical notices informing to remit interest amount and loan amount. Even after getting this information, the complainant has not made any repayment. Hence the opposite parties began to take legal steps. As the complaint is filed regarding the transaction between a member and the opposite party bank, it is to be adjudicated by statutory forms like Arbitrator Co-operative Appeal Tribunal etc – Hence the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit. Exts.P1 to P7 marked.
From the side of opposite parties DW1 examined. Exts.D1 to D5
marked.
(4)
Heard both sides.
The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in the Forum.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
3. Compensation and cost
Point 1 :-
The contention raised by the opposite party in their version that as the complaint is regarding the transaction between a member and the co-operative society bank the matter is to be adjudicated by statutory form like Arbitrator, co-operative Appeal Tribunal etc and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
In the present case, a member of opposite party society availed a loan for
Rs.30,000/- from the opposite party bank. In this transaction, the opposite party is a service provider. As per section 2(d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant, who availed service from the opposite party is a consumer.
As per Section (3) of Consumer Protection Act providers that the act not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Remedy provided under the act in addition to the provisions of any other law. Hence the contention of the opposite party that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint will not sustain. The Forum has ample jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
(5)
Point (2) and (3)
Admittedly the complainant had availed loan from the opposite party bank for an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 25/03/06 and defaulted in repayment.
The only contention raised by the complainant is that even though the opposite party is bound to provide service to the complainant and to provide benefits as per circular no.22/09 dated 22/09/09 they are not willing for the same.
According to the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefits as per Circular No.22/09 dated 22/09/09 and the benefits as per this circular can be given only to the loans for which the loan period expires before 31.03.06.
The pertinent question to be answered in this case is that whether the complainant is a beneficiary of Ext.P1 circular and whether P1 circular is over ruled by the D1 circular 100/09.
We have perused the documents adduced by both parties. Ext.P1 circular clearly shows that the co-operative societies and banks are directed not to realize the loan amount availed by the members of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes till further orders from Financial Department of Kerala State. It is further stated in Ext.P1 that if any amount collected from these group of members as per the Kudissikha Nivaranam scheme, that amount will be kept in suspense account.
(6)
The Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that D1 circular no.100/2004 and D5 Circular No.41/2010 deals only with those loans for which the period expired on 31/03/2009 and with the mode.
The complainant is not deserved to get the benefit covered by Circular No.22/09 dated 22/09/2009. Only after 3 years the said loan will come under the category of arrear loan and hence the opposite party is not at all binding to give benefits of the said circular to the complainant.
On perusal of Ext.P1 and D1 circular we find that it is not issued in connection with or in continuation of Ext.P1. There is no indication or reference in Ext.D1 regarding Ext.P1. No further order was issued by the financial department. While in cross examination DW1 also admitted that the 1 para of the Ext.D2 is the instruction that the loan amounts availed by the members of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes shall not be collected until further orders. He has stated that further orders and clarifications are received. But he had admitted that it is not seen anywhere in Ext.D1 that circular no.22/09 is over ruled. No instruction was received for collection of loan amount which were defaulted in repayment by SC-ST loanees. DW1 has stated in cross-examination that the complainant had no right to get the benefits as per Circular No.22/09. The Learned counsel for the complainant put the question that •óˆ¡ô« ‚¿ …¼¤ ¨Äø¢ð¢´¤¼ ð¡¨Ä¡ñ¤ ©ñ‰ð¤« ÷¡ñ¡´¢ð¢¶¢¿ …¼¤ œú𤼤 ? DW1 answered that ƒÙ®. Ext.D5 ðĤ ¨Äø¢ð¢´¤¼Ä¡Ã®.
(7)
We have perused Ext.D5 also in detail Ext.D5 contains guidelines for allowing benefits to the loans availed by SC-ST loanees for which the period of repayment expired before 31/03/06. There is no instruction regarding the other loans availed by SC-ST beneficiaries. Nothing has been stated in that circular regarding the lifting of ban for realization of loan amount and interest. DW1 also admitted before the Forum that there is no such order to recover loan amount availed by the loanees who belongs to SC and ST. In such a condition the opposite party has no right to realize the loan amount from the complainant.
For all that has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed not to realize the loan amount and interest from the complainant until further orders issued by the Financial Department, Kerala State. The opposite party is further directed to pay cost Rs.500/-.
As the complainant had not sustained any financial loss, no order as to compensation.
Dated this the 27th day of August 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari:Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
(8)
INDEX
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - Sudesan.T
List of documents for the complainant
P1 -Circular No.22/09 dated: 22/05/09
P2 - Attested copy of SSLC book page 3
P3 - Caste certificate (attested copy)
P4 - copy of the complainant issued to the Chief Minister, Kerala
P5 - Reply issued by the Joint Registrar
P6 - Reply issued by the Assistant Registrar
P7 - Notice issued by the opposite party
List of witness for the opposite party
DW1 - Sureshbabu
List of documents for the opposite party
D1 - Circular No.100/2009 dated 12/11/09
D2 - Letter No.12001/09 dated 24/06/09 from Registrar, Co-operative society
D3 - List of defaulter dated 30/03/06
D4 - Ledger copy of complainant
D5 - Circular No.4/10 dated 10/08/2010
