Kerala

Idukki

CC/39/2021

Vinod K C - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Thaluk primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv: Arun Cheriyan

30 Mar 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 18.2.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   30th     day of  March,  2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.39/2021

Between

Complainant                                           :     Vinod K.C.,

                                                                   Kariyadiyil House,

                                                                   Marigiri P.O.,

                                                                   Idukki – 685 609.

          (By Adv: Arun Cheriyan)

And

Opposite Parties                                     : 1. The Secretary,

                                                                   The Idukki Taluk Primary Co-operative

                                                                             Agricultural and Rural

                                                                             Development Bank Ltd. I.681,

                                                                   Head Office, Kattappana,

                                                                   Kattappana P.O., Idukki.

      2.  The Manager,

                                                                   The Idukki Taluk Primary Co-operative

                                                                             Agricultural and Rural

                                                                             Development Bank Ltd. I.681,

                                                                   Branch Office, Idukki,

                                                                   Idukki Colony P.O., Idukki.

 (By Advs: Shiji Joseph & Anish George)

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Case of the complainant is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          Complainant is an agricultural labourer.  1^st opposite party is Idukki Taluk Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. represented by it’s secretary and 2^nd opposite party is Idukki branch of 1^st opposite party represented by its manager.  Complainant had obtained an agricultural loan of Rs.1 lakh and house maintenance loan of Rs.3 lakhs from opposite parties.  Lands covered by pattayam in the name of complainant were offered as security for repayment.  Due to floods in 2018, crops of complainant and his poultry farm were destroyed.  There was crop failure for 3

(Cont.....2)

-2-

 years successively.  An amount of Rs.13,598/- was remitted towards agricultural loan and Rs.86,402/- towards house maintenance loan.  Thereafter, due to outbreak of Covid pandemic, Central Government had declared moratorium for loans.  Despite this, opposite parties had sent notices repeatedly demanding repayment of loan amount.  They were charging exorbitant interest, penal interest and notice charges for which there is no provision in the loan agreement.  Though the complainant had made an offer to repay the loan amount in instalments, opposite parties were not prepared to accept his promise.  On 15.2.2021, complainant had received a demand notice from opposite parties with regard to outstanding loan dues.  Due to financial contingency, complainant had requested for some time.  Though opposite parties had agreed to this orally, they had on 17.2.2021 gone to the house of complainant and threatened him that if entire loan amount was not repaid, revenue recovery steps will be taken against property of complainant without further notice.  Sending of notice during moratorium period, demanding of exorbitant interest, penal interest and notice charges amount to deficiency in service.  Complainant seeks a direction against opposite parties to grant more time for clearing the loan dues and to keep recovery proceedings at hold until then.  He prays for a further direction for reduction of excessive interest rate and for charging of interest as per the guidelines of Central Government and RBI excluding penal and notice charges as well.  He seeks compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs, from opposite parties. 

 

          2. Both opposite parties have entered appearance and filed a common written version.  Their contentions are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          According to opposite parties, complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.  Complainant had, after availing the loans from opposite parties, defaulted in repaying the same.  Demanding  payment of defaulted loan cannot be termed as deficiency in service.  It is incorrect to say that opposite parties are charging excessive interest.  Interest is charged as per the specifications of Government given from time to time.  Rate of interest was specifically agreed upon by  complainant as per the loan agreement.  Loan amount are in arrears for quite some time.  As public money is involved, opposite parties are duty bound to take recovery steps by issuing notice.  There is no mental harassment by sending of demand notices.  Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for.  Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

          3.  After filing of written version, case was posted for steps and then for evidence.  Despite availing repeated opportunities, complainant has not given any evidence.  Since there was no evidence from the side of complainant, opposite parties have not given any

 

(Cont.....3)

-3-

 

evidence.  Hence evidence was closed.  We have heard the learned counsel for opposite parties as neither complainant or  his counsel were present.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint ?

3)  Final Order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

          Though the complainant claims that opposite parties are charging excessive interest, he does not say what is the rate of interest as per the loan agreement.  He also does not disclosed by what rate, interest has exceeded the limit set as per guidelines of the RBI, Central Government or as per the loan agreement.  Similarly, pleadings addressed with regard to penal interest and notice charges are vague.  There is no evidence to prove these allegations.  Though the complainant claims that moratorium was declared, he does not have a case that he had applied for availing benefits of moratorium.  Hence contentions in this regard are also without any substance.  Complainant has produced copy of his pass book page to prove part payment towards loan amounts.  He has also produced demand notice dated 8.2.2021.  Both these documents are not sufficient to prove the case of complainant.  There is no evidence to prove that there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties.  Hence complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.3 :

 

          In the result, complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  Interim Stay granted as per Order in IA No.18/2021 is hereby vacated.  Parties shall take back extra sets of copies, without delay.

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the    30th      day of March, 2023

 

                                                                                                 Sd/-

  SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

          Forwarded by Order,                                                        Sd/-

  SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                   Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

DATE OF FILING : 18.2.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   30th     day of  March,  2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.39/2021

Between

Complainant                                           :     Vinod K.C.,

                                                                   Kariyadiyil House,

                                                                   Marigiri P.O.,

                                                                   Idukki – 685 609.

          (By Adv: Arun Cheriyan)

And

Opposite Parties                                     : 1. The Secretary,

                                                                   The Idukki Taluk Primary Co-operative

                                                                             Agricultural and Rural

                                                                             Development Bank Ltd. I.681,

                                                                   Head Office, Kattappana,

                                                                   Kattappana P.O., Idukki.

      2.  The Manager,

                                                                   The Idukki Taluk Primary Co-operative

                                                                             Agricultural and Rural

                                                                             Development Bank Ltd. I.681,

                                                                   Branch Office, Idukki,

                                                                   Idukki Colony P.O., Idukki.

 (By Advs: Shiji Joseph & Anish George)

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Case of the complainant is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          Complainant is an agricultural labourer.  1^st opposite party is Idukki Taluk Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. represented by it’s secretary and 2^nd opposite party is Idukki branch of 1^st opposite party represented by its manager.  Complainant had obtained an agricultural loan of Rs.1 lakh and house maintenance loan of Rs.3 lakhs from opposite parties.  Lands covered by pattayam in the name of complainant were offered as security for repayment.  Due to floods in 2018, crops of complainant and his poultry farm were destroyed.  There was crop failure for 3

(Cont.....2)

-2-

 years successively.  An amount of Rs.13,598/- was remitted towards agricultural loan and Rs.86,402/- towards house maintenance loan.  Thereafter, due to outbreak of Covid pandemic, Central Government had declared moratorium for loans.  Despite this, opposite parties had sent notices repeatedly demanding repayment of loan amount.  They were charging exorbitant interest, penal interest and notice charges for which there is no provision in the loan agreement.  Though the complainant had made an offer to repay the loan amount in instalments, opposite parties were not prepared to accept his promise.  On 15.2.2021, complainant had received a demand notice from opposite parties with regard to outstanding loan dues.  Due to financial contingency, complainant had requested for some time.  Though opposite parties had agreed to this orally, they had on 17.2.2021 gone to the house of complainant and threatened him that if entire loan amount was not repaid, revenue recovery steps will be taken against property of complainant without further notice.  Sending of notice during moratorium period, demanding of exorbitant interest, penal interest and notice charges amount to deficiency in service.  Complainant seeks a direction against opposite parties to grant more time for clearing the loan dues and to keep recovery proceedings at hold until then.  He prays for a further direction for reduction of excessive interest rate and for charging of interest as per the guidelines of Central Government and RBI excluding penal and notice charges as well.  He seeks compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs, from opposite parties. 

 

          2. Both opposite parties have entered appearance and filed a common written version.  Their contentions are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          According to opposite parties, complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.  Complainant had, after availing the loans from opposite parties, defaulted in repaying the same.  Demanding  payment of defaulted loan cannot be termed as deficiency in service.  It is incorrect to say that opposite parties are charging excessive interest.  Interest is charged as per the specifications of Government given from time to time.  Rate of interest was specifically agreed upon by  complainant as per the loan agreement.  Loan amount are in arrears for quite some time.  As public money is involved, opposite parties are duty bound to take recovery steps by issuing notice.  There is no mental harassment by sending of demand notices.  Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for.  Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

          3.  After filing of written version, case was posted for steps and then for evidence.  Despite availing repeated opportunities, complainant has not given any evidence.  Since there was no evidence from the side of complainant, opposite parties have not given any

 

(Cont.....3)

-3-

 

evidence.  Hence evidence was closed.  We have heard the learned counsel for opposite parties as neither complainant or  his counsel were present.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint ?

3)  Final Order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

          Though the complainant claims that opposite parties are charging excessive interest, he does not say what is the rate of interest as per the loan agreement.  He also does not disclosed by what rate, interest has exceeded the limit set as per guidelines of the RBI, Central Government or as per the loan agreement.  Similarly, pleadings addressed with regard to penal interest and notice charges are vague.  There is no evidence to prove these allegations.  Though the complainant claims that moratorium was declared, he does not have a case that he had applied for availing benefits of moratorium.  Hence contentions in this regard are also without any substance.  Complainant has produced copy of his pass book page to prove part payment towards loan amounts.  He has also produced demand notice dated 8.2.2021.  Both these documents are not sufficient to prove the case of complainant.  There is no evidence to prove that there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties.  Hence complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.3 :

 

          In the result, complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  Interim Stay granted as per Order in IA No.18/2021 is hereby vacated.  Parties shall take back extra sets of copies, without delay.

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the    30th      day of March, 2023

 

                                                                                                 Sd/-

  SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

          Forwarded by Order,                                                        Sd/-

  SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                   Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR