1. Thiru M. Shanmugam,

S/o. Late. Marappan,

3/45, North Street,

Perungurichi,

Paramathi Velur Taluk,

Namakkal District.

2. Thiru M. Vijayabharathi,

S/o. Late Marappan,

3/45, North Street,

Perungirichi,

Paramathi Velur Taluk,

Namakkal District. .. Complainants.

.Vs.

1. The Secretary,

S.431, Perungurichi Primary

Agricultural Cooperative Bank,

Perungurichi Post,

Paramathi Velur Tk,

Namakkal District.

2. The Deputy Registrar,

(Co-operative Department,

Tiruchengode,

Namakkal District. ..Opposite Parties.



This complaint coming on for final hearing before us on 03.12.2009 in the presence of Thiru K. Ramasamy, Advocate for Complainant and of Thiru S. Anbukkarasu, Government Pleader for the opposite parties and after hearing of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following order:
ORDER

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The crux of the complaint is:-

The complainants father Late Marappan was a member with the opposite party bearing No.1777 and Kisan Credit Card Loan No.127. The said Late Mr. Marappan had obtained loan for cultivating sugar cane and purchase of tyre vehicle. The said Mr. Marappan died on 17.03.2004. As per the rules and regulations when a member dies the insurance amount has to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and the loan borrowed has to be waived off. The opposite party ought to have issued the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant who are legal heirs of deceased Marappan. But the opposite party has refused to pay the said amount to the complainants. The complainants then issued a lawyer notice on 10.01.2006. The opposite parties had replied that the said amount has been set off against the loan borrowed by the complainants. The complainant has lodged the complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and has sought directions to pay the insurance amount, compensation, cost etc.

2. The crux of the contentions of the 1st opposite party in the written version is:- The opposite party has stated that the complainant’s father had obtained a loan of Rs.12,000/- on 21.03.2001 for cultivation of sugar cane. He has not paid any amount to them till his death. Further he had also obtained a loan of Rs.18,000/- on 28.03.2002 for purchasing tyre vehicle for which he has paid Rs.2,407/- being the penal interest alone. The opposite party contends that as per their rules and regulations when a member dies, the said account has to be closed immediately. The opposite party contends that they had got decree from ARC as per Cooperative Act hence the insurance amount has been credited to the loan account of the deceased Marappan to the tune of Rs.49,289/- and the complainants are entitled to receive only Rs.548/-. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.

3. The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 4 documents and the same has been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The 1st opposite party has filed proof affidavit along with 2 documents and the same has been marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2.

4. The point for consideration is:-

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

opposite parties and if so to what relief the complainant is

entitled for?



5. POINT:- The complainants father Late Marappan was a member with the opposite party bearing No.1777 and Kisan Credit Card Loan No.127. The said Late Mr. Marappan had obtained loan for cultivating sugar cane and purchase of tyre vehicle. The said Mr. Marappan died on 17.03.2004. The copy of death certificate has been produced and marked as Ex.A1. The complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Marappan. The legal heir certificate has been produced and marked as Ex.A2. As per the rules and regulations when a member dies the insurance amount has to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and the loan borrowed has to be waived off. The opposite party ought to have issued the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant who are legal heirs of deceased Marappan. But the opposite party has refused to pay the said amount to the complainants. The complainants then issued a lawyer notice on 10.01.2006. The copy of the lawyer notice has been produced and placed before us as Ex.A3. The 1st opposite party has contends that the complainant’s father had obtained a loan of Rs.12,000/- on 2103.2001 for cultivation of sugar cane. He has not paid any amount to them till his death. Further he had also obtained a loan of Rs.18,000/- on 28.03.2002 for purchasing tyre vehicle for which he has paid Rs.2,407/- being the penal interest alone. The opposite party contends that as per their rules and regulations when a member dies, the said account has to be closed immediately. The 1st opposite party contends that they had got decree from ARC as per Cooperative Act hence the insurance amount has been credited to the loan account of the deceased Marappan to the tune of Rs.49,289/- and the complainants are entitled to receive only Rs.548/-. The 2nd opposite party – Deputy Registrar (Cooperative) on the other hand in his reply which has been produced and marked as Ex.A4 has categorically stated that as per the Salem District Central Cooperative Bank Circular, when a member dies when the loan is due the society has to take legal steps to transfer the loan in the name of the legal heirs and he further states that since there is a stay to include any new members the complainants have not been impleaded. The 1st opposite party has failed to produce and place before us the said Circular issued by their Central Bank or the decree of ARC alleged to have been obtained by him. It is crystal clear from the Ex.A4 that the 1st opposite party ought to have taken legal steps to transfer the loan accounts in the name of the complainants, but, he has failed to do and instead he had unilaterally adjusted the loan account of the deceased. The 2nd opposite party speaks about the stay by the Court for including new members in Ex.A4. But neither of the opposite party has produced and placed before us the alleged order passed by the Court. It is surprising that the 2nd opposite party has not even mentioned the Court which has granted stay, the case number, date of order, the present status etc. and vaguely stated that there is a stay order by Court. In the absence of any such evidence we are unable to accept the vague contentions of the opposite parties for unilaterally adjusting the loan account of the deceased Marappan with the insurance amount due to the complainants without due process of law. The 1st opposite party ought to have taken appropriate legal steps available to him and ought to have acted as per the rules and regulations of their Society to recover the loan. Though the 1st opposite party speaks about the rules and regulations of their society they have not placed before us their bye-laws. The 1st opposite party has not placed in iota of proof in support of his unilateral act. The 1st opposite party cannot be simply allowed to act unilaterally and adjust the loan amount of the deceased arbitrarily without following the legal procedures laid down. The opposite parties have failed to convincingly establish their contentions with documentary evidences. No case has been made out against the 2nd opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint and in view of the socio-economic nature of the Consumer Protection and in light of the discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the act of the 1st opposite party is gross deficiency in service, which would have definitely resulted in mental agony to the complainants and as such they are entitled for compensation on this account.

7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants being the insurance amount due to them. Further the 1st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and paid suffered by them and Rs.2,000/- as cost. Time for payment one month from the date of this order.
Pronounced by us in Open Forum, this the 23rd day of December,2009.