Date of filing :16-05-2008 Date of order :22-03-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC66/08 Dated this, the 22nd day of March 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER C.Krishnan Nair, S/o. E.Malingu Nair, R/at Kundamkuzhi Badira Aramanakkal, } Complainant Bedadukka Village, Po.Kundamkuzhy, Kasaragod Taluk (Adv.E.Sukumaran Nair, Hosdurg) Velayudhan, Secretary, Bedakam Farmers Co-0p. Bank, } Opposite party Kundamkuzhy. (Adv. Chandra Mohanan, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Case of the complainant Krishnan Nair is that he availed loan of Rs.8000/- towards agricultural purposes. He could not repay the loan in due time. Hence loan recovery steps was taken by opposite party against him and the pumpsets and one sewing machine were attached. The recovery proceedings were initiated due to the personal enemity of the Managing Director against him. Thereafter he again approached the Bank for a loan after 3 years. But the Secretary refused to grant him loan. On complaints made against these the Bank prepared to grant him a loan to an extent of Rs.5000/- only as against his application for Rs.30,000/-. His further complaint is that Bank is not prepared to issue cheque book to him on behalf of his wife Leela. His wife Leela also have a deposit in the Bank where a sum of Rs.12,546/- is in credit. Therefore the complaint. 2. According to opposite party the complainant availed a loan of Rs.3600/- on 11-1-1993 for digging a well and Rs.5956. 70 on 9-3-93 for purchasing a pumpset. But he has repaid only Rs.240/- and Rs.376.70 respectively towards the said loans. Hence Bank initiated arbitration proceedings against him and a decree was obtained from the court of Assistant Registrar. Later it was executed through sale officer with police escort. But the sewing machine was not attached. 3. The complainant thereafter approached in 2006 for another loan. Since his former dealings were not satisfactory he was granted only Rs.5000/- as loan. The said loan is pending due since 19-11-2008 and the complainant has not repaid the same yet. The allegation that the cheque book was not issued to him on behalf of his wife Leela is also not correct. She used to come to Bank and on 27-2-2008 she closed the loan after withdrawing the amount. Thereafter she was given another loan of Rs.10,000/- on 24-2-2008 when the complainant applied for a cheque book in favour of his wife only Rs.5208/- was due in her account. It is a doubtful that the application submitted on behalf of Leela is whether actually belongs to her. The complainant is a bone litigant and lodging complaints against the authorities is his hobby. Therefore the complaint is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. 4. Complainant filed affidavit and Exts A1 to A3 marked. He faced cross-examination by the counsel for opposite party. Exts B1 to B8 marked on the side of opposite party. Both sides heard. Documents perused. 5. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party Bank realised the loan dues through attachment proceedings since he could not repay the loan. The bank is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings under the procedure established by law. Complainant has no case that bank has recoursed any unlawful means to recover the loan. Hence it cannot be considered as a deficiency in service. 6. Another case of the complainant is that the Bank has granted him Rs.5000/- as loan in 2007 as against his request for Rs.30,000/-. The Bank contended that the earlier transaction of the complainant was not satisfactory and he was not affluent to repay the loan if a bigger amount is granted as loan. The complainant as PW1 in cross-examination on his proof affidavit admitted that the agricultural loan granted to him on 19-1-2007 is pending due and he has not repaid anything to the said loan. This justifies the action of the opposite party. 7. As against the case of non-issuance of cheque book, to him on behalf of his wife, the complainant admitted the cross-examination that he is not in good terms with his wife for the past 3 years. If that be so the contention of the opposite party that they have doubt about the genuiness of the authorization letter submitted by the complainant is well founded. Hence no liability can be fastened on the opposite party attributing deficiency in service on their shoulders. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1000/- to the opposite party. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. S.B.A/c No. 466 pass book of Complainant. A2. Agreement A3. 10-5-08 copy of letter sent by Leela to OP. B1. 10-5-2008 letter sent by Leela to Opposite party B2.28-4-07 letter sent by Leela to Secretary B3.Procceedings of the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. B4.Statements of Accounts of Smt.Leela.M. B5. Photo copy of Loan Ledger Page No.62, B6. Photo copy of Loan Ledger Page No. 212 B7. Photo copy of Kisan Credit Card Loan Ledger page No.3 B8. Photo copy of Kisan Credit Card Loan Ledger page No.102 PW1. C.Krishnan Nair, Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
