Kerala

Idukki

CC/33/2020

Nancy Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union bank of india - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 12.2.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30^th day of  October, 2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.33/2020

Between

Complainant     :      Nancy Thomas,

Pamprayil House,

Pannimattam P.O., Thodupuzha.

           (By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties     : 1. The Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Kalayanthani P.O., Thodupuzha.   

      2.  Union Bank of India,

Represented by the Branch Manager,

Kalayanthani Branch,

Kalayanthani P.O. Thodupuzha.

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 and her husband are cultivating pineapple.  On 31.10.2015, complainant had availed an agricultural loan of Rs.3 lakhs from Kalayanthani branch of Union Bank of India, 1^st opposite party herein, represented by its manager.  2^nd opposite party is the bank itself, who is represented by the same manager.  Complainant was remitting the loan instalments correctly for one year.  Due to floods which inundated the State in 2018, complainant had suffered huge financial loss owing to destruction of crops.  Hence complainant had approached opposite party and sought for more time to repay the loan amount.  Government had also declared moratorium against recovery of agricultural loans, directed renewal of these loans and extension of loan repayment period.  Upon coming to know about this, complainant had sought for these facilities from opposite parties.  However, in violation of Government directions, the loan account of the complainant was classified as NPA on 30.11.2019.  A notice was issued to her dated 22.1.2020 seeking recovery of loan amount with interest and charges.  Complainant is still engaged in pineapple cultivation.  She is confident that she can repay the loan if time is granted for repayment.  Moreover, she had pledged property  worth Rs.2 crores having an extend of 48 cents as security for the loan.  Attempting recovery without granting moratorium and other soft repayment facilities ordered by Government amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Complainant hence seeks a direction against opposite parties to give her extension of time to repay the loan and also for its rescheduling in terms with the directions given by the Government.  She seeks a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and litigation costs of Rs.5000/- from opposite parties.

 

2. Opposite parties had entered appearance and filed written version.  Their contentions  are briefly narrated hereunder :  

 

According to opposite parties, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  It is true that the complainant had approached opposite parties seeking extension of time for repayment due to crop failure.  Government had ordered moratorium for farmers who were affected with floods along with guidelines.  State Level Bankers Committee has framed relief measures and guidelines for the effective implementation of  moratorium.  Complainant had availed agricultural loan of Rs.3 lakhs on 31.10.2015, for a period of one year. This loan was renewed on 31.10.2016 and thereafter complainant had not sought for further renewal.  Loan became due on 31.10.2017.  Account became NPA on 30.11.2019.  Borrowers are eligible for moratorium only for the loans which are not at default or due as on 31.7.2018.  Complainant was not eligible for moratorium, when the loan was classified as NPA. Notice was sent to complainant as part of recovery measures.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.  Complainant does not have a cause of action.  Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

3. Case was then posted for steps and thereafter for evidence.  No oral evidence was tendered by complainant.  Notice dated 22.1.2020 was marked as Ext.P1 from the side of complainant.  From the side of opposite parties, 1^st opposite party was examined as RW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 were marked.  Ext.R1 is a copy of guidelines issued by SLBC dated 21.8.2018 regarding grant of moratorium facilities to flood affected farmers.  Ext.R2 is circular No.9181 dated 13.1.2012 issued from the Head Office of 2^nd opposite party bank clarifying interest rate chargeable for agricultural loans.  Ext.R3 is extract of loan account in the name of complainant, for the period from 31.10.2015 to 2.11.2023.  After examination of RW1, evidence was closed.  Both sides were heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

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

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

3)  Final order and costs ?

 

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

 

We notice that similar case filled by this complainant along with her husband as complainants against the same bank herein was taken on file as CC 138/19 regarding 3 loans. Nothing is mentioned in the present case about the old case.

 

Complainant has not tendered oral evidence in proof of the allegations leveled against opposite parties in her complaint.  Ext.P1 is a notice issued by 1^st opposite party seeking payment of loan arrears along with interest and charges.  However, 1^st opposite party has tendered evidence from the side of opposite party in support of contentions addressed in the written version.  Upon going through the evidence tendered by the witness, we find no material inconsistency in version in box from the pleadings addressed in written version.  It is seen from the evidence tendered from the side of opposite parties, in particular, as per Exts.R1 and R3, moratorium was granted to loans only from 31.6.2018 or the date of eligibility as notified by the State Government whichever is earlier.  Restructuring of loan and moratorium framed, under the guidelines is to be made effective on 31.7.2018.  As per condition No.9, specified request for restructuring / rescheduling must be obtained from the borrower.  Application for fresh / additional loans is to be submitted within 31.12.2018.  As per Ext.R3, there is no payment from 31.10.2016 towards the loan by complainant.  There is no evidence to show that the complainant had applied for restructuring of loan or to get moratorium relief.  Since complainant has a case that he is entitled for such facilities, primary burden is upon her to prove her entitlement as such.  This burden has not been discharged by the complainant.  As there is no proof with regard to entitlement for moratorium or soft loan repayment facilities from the side of complainant, she cannot allege that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties when such facilities are not extended to her.  Recovery of arrears is only a part of banker’s duty and no blame can be given to the bank on this count.  For these reasons, we find that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.3 :

 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  Parties to take back extra copies, without fail.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the   30^th   day of October, 2024

 

     Sd/-

         SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

     Sd/-

    SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

RW1      -  Ebin P.R.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    -Notice dated 22.1.2020 issued by opposite party to complainant.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    -copy of guidelines issued by SLBC dated 21.8.2018 regarding grant of

        moratorium facilities to flood affected farmers.  

Ext.R2   -  circular No.9181 dated 13.1.2012 issued from the Head Office of 2^nd opposite

       party bank clarifying interest rate chargeable for agricultural loans.

 

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR