BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No: 303/2014     Filed on 02.08.2014

ORDER DATED: 29.06.2018

Complainant:

(by Adv. K. Radhakrishnan)

Opposite parties:

(by Adv. M.P. Sasidharan Nair)

This C.C having been heard on 04.05.2018, the Forum on 29.06.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI,  MEMBER:

The case of the complainant is that he availed a surety loan of Rs.3,50,000/- on 09.02.2009 as per loan no.OL 1114/08/09 with a condition to effect recovery from the monthly salary of the complainant from the month of September 2009 till his retirement on 31.10.2010.  The complainant has also executed an agreement dated 09.02.2009 with the 1^st opposite party stating that if any balance remain to be repaid at the time of retirement as on 31.10.2010, the same can be realised from the pensionary benefits of the complainant.  In the month of retirement also 2^nd opposite party effected monthly recovery from his salary.  But as steps were taken by the 2^nd opposite party to recover loan dues from the pensionary benefits or leave salary of the complainant.  He received his pension benefits on 31.10.2010 and leave salary on 09.02.2011.  The complainant remitted Rs.1,50,000/- towards loan dues from his leave salary on 09.02.2011 as per receipt no.8857.  On 19.06.2012 the 2^nd opposite party has issued a notice dated 19.06.2012 to the complainant and his sureties demanding to remit Rs.90,574/- towards the loan dues within 7 days of the receipt of notice.  It is stated in the said notice that if the payment was not made as per direction. Further steps will be initiated against sureties to affect their salary recovery and revenue recovery proceedings.  The 2^nd opposite parties has again sent another notice to the first surety on 28.07.2012 demanding to remit an amount of Rs.88,323/- towards the loan dues of the complaint since no amount was paid towards the loan account as per notice dated 19.06.2012.  In pursuance of the notice dated 28.07.2012 the 2^nd opposite party recovered monthly salary of the sureties at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each.  Thereafter the complainant requested the 2^nd opposite party to issue the statement of account of loan and other details including a copy of letter sent showing the last amount to be recovered from his pensionary benefits towards BSNL office under RTI Act.  But the 2^nd opposite party after accepting the said application had issued statement of accounts only but not issued the copy of the letter sent to the BSNL authorities.  Though the complainant preferred appeal against the 2^nd opposite parties before appellant authority on 15.10.2012, surprisingly the 2^nd opposite party issued another copy of statement of account only but not the copy of letter sent to BSNL authority.  Since the 2^nd opposite party continued salary recovery of the sureties, the complainant approached the Honourable Kerala Lok Ayukta and filed complaint No.C 671/2012-B to stop salary recovery towards the loan dues of the complainant.  During the course of proceedings the complainant has remitted a sum of Rs.16,500/- on 02.03.13 in addition to the salary recovery of the complainant and loan account was settled as demanded by the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party has illegally collected an excess sum of Rs.26,500/- from the complainant towards penal interest and other expenses.  So the opposite party is liable to return the excess amount remitted by the complainant.  so the complainant filed a petition before the Honourable Lok Ayukta permitting him to withdraw his case with liberty to file fresh complaint before the appropriate forum seeking appropriate remedy and petition was allowed accordingly as per order dated 30^th April, 2013 by the Honourable Lok Ayukta.  The complaint No.1411 of 2013 filed by Jayalekshmi, who is the 1^st surety, was also disposed with direction to 2^nd opposite party to inform her disbursing officer that the loan account was settled fully with intimation to the sureties.  But the 2^nd opposite party has not acted as per the direction of the Honourable Lok Ayukta to intimate the matter to the sureties.  The complainant submitted that an excess amount of Rs.26,500/- was collected by the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence he filed this complaint to realise a sum of Rs.26,500/ from the opposite parties with interest along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

The opposite parties accepted notice entered appearance and filed version.

The 1^st opposite party filed version for himself and for 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties stated that loan was granted to the complainant and as per the terms and conditions of the loan, he is liable to repay the whole amount with interest by pay roll recovery, before his date of retirement on 31.10.2010.  As per the agreement executed by the sureties, the sureties undertake the liability of the complainant if he fails to repay the loan in time.  The salary disbursing officer of the complainant has also given undertaking to recover the dues from his monthly salary each and every month without fail.  On the strength of above agreements the society paid him Rs.3,50,000/- on 09.02.2009 under the loan account No.OL1114/08-09 and send recovery statement every month to the salary disbursing officer.  The amount recovered from his salary was less than what he agreed to and therefore the liability could not be discharged within the time limit.  At the time of his retirement the outstanding amount in the loan was Rs.2,70,372/-.  Considering the consent letter of the complainant to recover dues from his DCRG, the opposite parties issued certificate for recovery of the dues on 06.04.2010 to the Accounts Officer, pension section of BSNL and requested to the Principal General Manager BSNL, Trivandrum on 22.09.2010.  While the above requests are pending with BSNL, the complainant had taken payment of whole DCRG amount after his retirement.  It is therefore the opposite parties initiated steps to recover the dues from the sureties.  It is true that the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his dues on 09.02.11.  It is only after taking action by the opposite parties to recover the outstanding dues from sureties.

The opposite parties initiated proceedings against the sureties to discharge the dues as per the agreement and bond issued by them.  Being a member the complainant is free to verify the statement of accounts in respect of the loan he availed from the office of the opposite parties at working hours.  The opposite parties had not recovered any excess amount or legal expenses form the complainant.  the excess amount of Rs.1,950/- recovered by the disbursing officer in excess was paid to the complainant on 03.06.2011 under receipt No.162092 and settled without disputes.  Hence the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and complaint is only liable to be dismissed. 

The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced documents.  The complainant was absent for cross examination.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Exts. D1 to D8.

Issues

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) and (ii)

The case of the complainant is that he availed a surety loan for Rs.3,50,000/- on 09.02.2009 with a condition to effect recovery from the monthly salary of complainant.  Complainant has received his pension benefit on 31.10.2010 and the 2^nd opposite party has not taken any steps to recover loan dues from his pension benefit or leave salary.  But the complainant has remitted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his loan dues on 09.02.2011.  The 2^nd opposite party has sent notice to the complainant and sureties demanding to remit balance amount of Rs.90,574/- towards loan dues.  The 2^nd opposite party recovered monthly salary of the sureties @Rs.5,000/- each.  Thereafter the complainant requested for detailed loan account details including a copy of letter sent showing the last amount to be recovered from his pensionary benefits towards BSNL officer under RTI Act.  The 2^nd opposite party issued only account statement.  The complainant and one of the sureties who is the wife of the complainant filed complaint before Lok Ayukta.  During the course of the proceedings the complainant has remitted a sum of Rs.16,500/- on 02.03.2013.  The complainant stated that the 2^nd opposite party illegally collected an excess sum of Rs.26,500/- and is liable to return the excess amount.   The complainant withdrew the complaint before the Lok Ayukta with liberty to file fresh complaint before appropriate forum.  Therefore complainant approached this forum for refund of excess sum of Rs.26,500/- along with compensation and costs.

The allegation of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party did not take any steps to recover the loan amount from his pension benefits for which the opposite parties produced Ext. D7 letter which shows that on 22.09.2010 the opposite parties issued letter to the Accounts Officer to recover the amount of Rs.2,38,197/- from the complainant.  The complainant himself admits that he received the pension benefits on 31.10.10 i.e. after the Ext. D7 letter.  The complainant himself admits that he remitted Rs.1,50,000/- towards his loan account on 09.02.2011.  This shows that the complainant has full knowledge regarding his pending loan and he has no case that he paid the entire loan amount.  He himself admits that further paid Rs.16,500/-  while the case was pending before Lok Ayukta on 02.03.2013 in addition to the salary recovery of the complainant and loan account was settled as demanded by the 2^nd opposite party.  This means that the complainant is having full knowledge regarding the payment of loan dues.  The Ext. D1 order shows that the complainant paid the entire amount to stop recovery proceedings against the surety.  The complainant is the 2^nd respondent in Ext. D1 order dated 31.04.2013 and there also he did not dispute the balance loan amount.  On 30.04.13 itself the complainant withdraw his complaint before Lok Ayukta with liberty to file fresh complaint.  In the complaint before this Forum the complainant did not explain how the 2^nd opposite party has illegally collected an excess sum of Rs.26,500/- from the complainant towards penal interest.  The complainant did not appear before this Forum for giving any oral evidence.  Anyhow on going through statements and evidence it is seen that the complainant did not remit the loan amount without any default.  His statements itself shows that he is a defaulter.  Moreover he cannot blame the opposite parties fully for not recovering the amount from his pension benefit.   He has full knowledge that his loan amount was not recovered from his pension benefit.  So he remitted Rs.1,50,000/-.  Then also he has no claim that he remitted the said amount under the impression that it is final settlement.  He paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 2011 and the balance amount on 2013 after recovery on 2012.  This itself shows that the complainant is not prompt in repaying the loan amount.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties.  Therefore complaint is only to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of June,  2018.

SL

C.C.No.303/2014

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

5. COURT EXHIBITS

                                                                                                       Sd/-

PRESIDENT