By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:

Brief of the complaint:

The Complainant has availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- during 2004 from the Opposite Party by pledging the title deed of his property. The loan was written off by the Opposite Party Bank as per Debt Relief Scheme of the Central Government. There after the Complainant has applied for renewal of the loan but the request was denied by Opposite Party. The direction of the Reserve Bank of India is that those who have entitled to be include the Debt Relief Scheme is also entitle for getting another loan by way of renewal. It is therefore prayed that the Forum may be direct the Opposite Party to allow loan facility by way of renewing his loan as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India and that of the Debt Relief Scheme.

2. Opposite Party appeared and filed his version. In the version he stated that the complaint is not maintainable either on true or on facts. The sanction of fresh loan is entirely the right and prerogative of the managing committee as per the act, rules and bylaws and no one can claim sanction of loan as of right and the bank has the right to look into all factors and the other circumstances of the applicant. The same cannot be construed as deficiency of service. The Complainant is seen laid against the Secretary of the bank. The bank is not properly impleaded. The relief claimed is not against the Co-operative Bank but against the Secretary. The Complainant is a member of the bank. The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant has availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- during 2001 and the same is written off by the Opposite Party as per the debt relief scheme. Since the entire loan dues outstanding were written off as per the debt relief scheme and therefore there will not be any existing loan for renewal. There is no direction by the Reserve Bank of India to the effect that the loans written off under the debt relief scheme are to be renewed. The Complainant has not made any application for any fresh agriculture loan based on the eligible amount waived as per the debt relief scheme. After the loan availed by the Complainant has approached the bank again only on 27.01.2010. The application of the Complainant was rejected for the reason that the Complainant was a habitual defaulter of loan. On account of public money involved, it is the duty of the governing body to be convinced that the repayment of the loan with interest will be made. There is no question of renewing the loan as the Complainant himself has admitted that his entire loan liability has been written off. There is no question of renewing a non-existing loan.

3. On going through the Complaint and version the following points are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.

              2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1:- To prove Complainant's case, in addition to the Complainant he has produced his proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4. In the proof affidavit he has stated as stated in the complaint. Ext.A1 is the copy of the application dated 09.02.2010 sent to Opposite Party under right to Information Act. Ext.A2 is the board decision of the bank taken on 06.02.2010 on the application of the Complainant ie is the reply of Ext.A1. Ext.A3 is the copy of order in TLSC/64/09. Ext.A4 is the copy of the circular No.41/2008 issued by Co-operative Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram. No evidence adduced on the side of Opposite Party. On perusing the Complaint version and documents it is clear that the Complainant has availed a loan from Opposite party during 2001 and the same is written off as per the Debt Relief Scheme in 2008. It means during 2010 there is no outstanding loan in the name of the Complainant. The prayer of the Complainant is to renew the loan as per the debt relief scheme. Para 22 of Ext.A4 Circular as follows. “ FgpXn Xf-fnb XpIbv¡v  XpÃ-y-amb ]pXnb hmbv]bv¡v \ma-am-{X-/ sNdp-InS IÀj-I³ AÀl-\m-bn-cn-¡pw ” It means the applicant can apply for fresh loan. But no evidence before us to show that the applicant has applied for fresh loan before Opposite Party. In the complaint the applicant prayed for renewing the loan. It is admitted by both parties that the loan is closed during 2008. It means there is no existing loan. At the time of cross examination the Complainant stated that “ Rm³ ImÀjnI hnI-k\ _m¦v I¸-ä-bn \n¶pw tem¬ FSp-¯n-cp¶p B XpI AS-bv¡m³ _m¡n-bp-­v. Xcn-tbmSv ku¯v ae-_mÀ {KmaoW _m¦n \n¶pw tem¬ FSp-¯n-cp-¶p. 1 hÀjs¯ IpSn-ÈnIbp­v. 2001  FSp¯ temWn-te¡v hfsc Ipd¨v XpIsb AS-¨n-«p-Åq. Fsâ kz´w t]cn sI«nS apdn-IÄ 7 F®w Im¸p-h-b-en D­v 90 þ 92 hÀj-¯n FSp-¯-XmWv. 1 apdn hmS-Ibv¡v sImSp-¯n-cn-¡p-¶p. Rm³ I¨-hSw sNbvXn-«p-­v. tem¬ ]pXp¡n In«m-\mWv Bh-i-y-s¸« \nhr¯n. tem¬ ]pXp-¡m³ sN¶-t¸mÄ processing charge Hm, ]pXp-¡p-¶-Xn-\p-ff NmÀtÖm hm§n-bn-«nÔetc. It means the Complainant is in the habit of availing loan from different banks and is not in the habit of remitting the loan amount even though he is having income. More over he has not paid any amount to Opposite Party for renewing the loan amount. The applicant not filed any fresh loan application to the Opposite Party. Considering the above aspect we come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

5. Point No.2:- Point No.1 is against the Complainant hence we are not discussing point No.2 in details.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29^th September 2010.

Date of filing: 23.04.2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Dominic. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Letter. dt:09.02.2010.

A2. Copy of Minutes. dt:06.02.2010.

A3. Copy of Order in TLSC 64/09. dt:15.07.2009

A4. Copy of the Circular No.41/2008. dt:05.06.2008.

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

Nil.