Kerala

Idukki

CC/118/2022

MOLY THOMAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

Service co-operative bank - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jun 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 15/07/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  26^th day of June 2023

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.118/2022

Between

Complainant                                :  Molly Thomas,

                                                        Narakathinkal House,

                                                        Challavayal Bhagam, Muttam P.O.,

                                                        Muttam Village,

                                                        Thodupuzha Taluk,  Pin – 685 587.

                                                        (By Adv.K.S.Cyriac)

                                                   And

Opposite Party :                      : Muttam Service Co-Operative Bank 1284,                     

                                                  Represented by its Secretary,

                                                  Muttam Kara, Muttam Village,

                                                  Thodupuzha Taluk, Pin – 685 587.

                                                    (By Adv.Shajan T.Nilappana & Adv.K.M.Sanu)

 

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Complainant’s averments are discussed hereunder:-

 

1 . Opposite party receives FD and gives loans to its members by levying more than 3% above FD rates.  Complainant is a member of opposite party (Muttam Service Co-Operative Bank) having membership number 9917.  She is a customer and consumer of the bank.  She had been availing

 

(Cont.....2)

 

-2-

service of opposite party from 2007 onwards through loan account          No.OL 20256.  Her husband died in 2017 by affecting serious kidney disease.  She had renewed the loan account in 2018 for the purpose of treatment, education and family expenses.

2 . She had filed many applications before ministers to write off the liability through Disaster Relief Scheme of Chief Minister due to the death of her husband owing to the above disease.  She believed that her application was accepted.  While so, she received complaint No.PLP No.398/2022 filed by opposite party from Idukki Legal Service Authority stating that above application  will be considered on 12/03/2022 and the loan outstanding amount shown therein is Rs.26,66,455/-.  But it was not solved.  She received summons without file number along with a plaint dated Nil in printed form showing therein as filed before Assistant Registrar (General), Co-Operative Societies.  Interest shown therein is 14% +2%, litigation costs Rs.5000/- and total amount due is Rs.25,97,512/- which is untrue.

3 . From this, it is clear that opposite party is irresponsibly handling her loan account.  It is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Opposite party bank is a big institution having employees including accountants and its accounts are verified by its employees and also by Co-Operative Department’s auditors.  As such, mistakes in interest in her loan account cannot be treated as accidental one.  While opposite party is levying more amounts towards consideration but its services are highly deficient.  Opposite party is liable to pay compensation for irreparable loss, hardship, mental agony and indignity caused to her.  She is entitled to get compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs from opposite party and to close her loan account without any condition and also to return entire documents to her.

Hence she prayed for the following reliefs.

(Cont.....3)

 

-3-

 

1 . Direct opposite party to close her loan account No.OL 20256 without any condition and to return the entire documents.

2 . Allow compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs and to recover the same from opposite party.

3 . Allow her to recover the litigation costs from opposite party.

On the other hand, opposite party’s contentions are as under:-

Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Complainant has no cause of action against opposite party.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  Complainant is a member of opposite party bank from 2004 with membership No.9917.  She had been availing loan facility from opposite party from 2008 onwards.

In February 2008, she had availed loan of Rs.65,000/- as per loan No.OL 12769 for construction of house by giving security of 20.63 Ares property in Re Sy No.204/IA (Original Sy.No.102/IB/2) of  Muttam Village.  Another loan of Rs.50,000/- was availed by her father on the same day by offering same property as security for Pineapple cultivation.  For this, gehan, bond and documents were given.

As above  2 loans were in arrears, she filed loan application and allowed Rs.2 Lakhs in loan No.OL 15777/12 in February 2012 for the purpose of remitting the dues and to meet her more needs.  After closing the old loans, she received balance amounts.  For this, above said documents were given.

(Cont.....4)

 

-4-

Later in February 2013, she availed loan of Rs.2 Lakhs in loan     No.OL 16676/13 for  renewal of previous loan and she received balance amount by executing above documents.  Subsequently on 31/03/2015, she availed loan of Rs.3.20 Lakhs with loan No.OL 18147/14 and on 02/04/2015 another loan  of Rs.3.20 Lakhs was also availed with loan No.18174/15 by giving security of above 20.63 Ares property for remitting dues and received balance amount by her.  For these also above documents were executed.  Later in January 2016, she availed loan of Rs.10 Lakhs in loan              No.OL 19839/16 on the security of above property and executing above documents.  After remitting dues, balance amount was received by her.  On 03/10/2018 another loan of Rs.17 Lakhs with loan No.OL 20256/18 was availed by her on the security of above property by executing above documents and after remitting dues, balance amount was received by her.

As per terms of loan, she had to remit the amount with 14% interest before 01/10/2019.  She had agreed to remit 2% penal interest if any default is committed in payments.  But she had not remitted any amount till date.  As of now, total dues comes to Rs.27,95,830/-.

Notices were issued on 19/03/2020 and 17/09/2020 requesting to remit the amount.  Besides, it was demanded over phone several times.  As the complainant failed to remit the amount, opposite party filed plaint No.564/2022 before Assistant Registrar (General), Co-Operative Department, Thodupuzha.  Notice was issued on this directing to attend on 19/07/2022.  Without co-operating and remitting the dues and after receipt of above, she has approached this Commission.  She could have filed objection before him if, she had any dispute in respect of loan.  Present complaint is filed to harass the opposite party.

(Cont.....5)

 

-5-

Averment in complaint that she had loan account No.OL 20256 from 2007 onwards is not correct.  Above loan was availed on 30/10/2018.  All loans prior to this were closed.  Opposite party has no knowledge of the disease or death of complainant’s husband.  Averment in para 3 regarding the purpose of loan is not correct.  About 50 cents of property having sufficient market value was given as security for availing the loan.

Opposite party complies with Co-Operative Societies Act and Rules and loan transactions and accounts are transparent.  Opposite party is levying interest based on law existed from time to time.  After stating the conditions of loan and with consent of borrowers, it obtains bond and other documents duly signed by borrower.  She is bound to comply with terms of loan and to remit the amounts.  She filed this complaint  only to drag on the payment of amount due to opposite party.

So, opposite party prayed to dismiss complaint with costs.

No oral evidence was adduced from both sides.  Complainant produced copy of 3 documents which were marked as Ext.P1 to P3 and copy of 5 documents produced by opposite party were marked as Exts.R1 to R5.

Copy of plaint was also produced by opposite party.  It was already marked as Ext.P1.

Heard the matter.

We have examined the pleadings and contentions of both sides and perused the documents marked.  On going through the same, following points arise for consideration.

1 . Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?

(Cont.....6)

 

-6-

2 . If so, for what reliefs complainant is entitled to?

3 . Reliefs and costs?

Point Nos.1 and 2 considered together

On a perusal of complaint and written version, it is seen that the only existing loan is OL 20256/18.  Though complainant averred that she had been availing loan from 2007 onwards, opposite party states that, it is from 2008 onwards.  However, there is no dispute with regard to earlier loans as opposite party has admitted that previous loans were already closed.  Complainant has also not raised any allegation against earlier loans.  Though she averred that applications were filed many times before ministers, no evidence thereof is filed and it is not a matter to be decided in this complaint.  Once a borrower of loan executes prescribed documents as per law, legal presumption is that he/she agrees to the terms of document.  As per Ext.R3, it is specifically stated that interest @ 2% per annum is leviable for defaulted amount along with normal interest @ 14%.  Hence she cannot abstain from performing her contractual obligations.

On going through the averments of complainant, it is seen that main allegation against opposite party is that her account is carelessly handled and different amounts were shown as due as per plaint filed before Assistant Registrar and Lok Adalat.  On going through Ext.P1 total dues as on 25/02/2022 including litigation costs Rs.5000/- is Rs.25,97,512/- whereas in Ext.R5 dated 23/02/2022 outstanding amount is shown as Rs.26,22,104/-.  No explanation   is   offered    for    this     by      opposite party.   Learned counsel     for    complainant    submits     that     difference    in            amount    would    indicate   a    major   variation   in   loan    agreement.

(Cont.....7)

-7-

Owing to latches from the side of opposite party, complainant was unable to perform her part of contract.  Therefore, she is to be exempted from the liability under it.  Reliance is placed upon judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shripati Laghu Mane Vs. The Member Secretary, Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors (Civil Appeal No.556 of 2012 dated 30/03/2022).  These contentions are not all meritorious.  Decision came in a matter of works contract where the contractor was unable to complete the work due to acts of commission on the part of his appointing authority to execute the work.  Court held that it is open to the party not to perform the contract.  There is nothing in the complaint disclosing any specific act of omission or commission by opposite party which will exonerate the complainant from clearing loan dues.   Mere difference in amount claimed will not substantiate any case of such latches either.

Both parties have not filed interest calculation statement.  In Ext.R3, interest shown is 14% per annum and for defaulted amount, penal interest is 2% per annum.   On a rough calculation of interest as per Ext.R3, it is found that amount shown as due as on date in written version is Rs.27,95,830/-  which is found to be almost correct, as complainant has no case that she had remitted any amount towards loan account.   She has also no case that she had attended in Lok Adalat or before Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies.  Complainant has legal right to appear and present her grievances/objections before the above statutory authorities.  Without availing the same, complainant filed this complaint which is not a fair practice.  Being statutory supervisory authority, Assistant Registrar is bound to verify the claim raised by opposite party.  It is not discernible from the evidence available on record that whether plaint filed before Assistant Registrar is disposed of.  If the complainant disputes the correctness of demand, she can approach Assistant Registrar and other statutory authorities. 

(Cont.....8)

 

-8-

She has no specific case that so much amount demanded is more than actually due.  On an analysis of the entire facts and evidence of the case, it can be safely concluded that complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party.  Prayers of complainant are found to be not allowable in the light of our findings shown above.  In the above circumstances, we are of the firm view that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs prayed for.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are decided against the complainant.

Point No.3

In the light of above discussions and our findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

Interim application if any stands disposed of.    

Parties shall take back extra copies without delay.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the  26^th  day of June 2023.

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                            SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                 SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                        SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

 

(Cont.....9)

-9-

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 –Plaint No.564/2022  filed by Muttam Service  Co-Operative bank  

              before Assistant Registrar (General), Co-Operative

              Societies, Thodupuzha.

Ext.P2 – Summons issued under Rule 67 of the Rule under Section 70 of the  

               Co-Operative Societies Act 21 of 1969.

Ext.P3 – Copy of Lok Adalath Notice dated 24/02/2022

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 – Copy of Loan application filed by complainant to opposite party.

Ext.R2 -  Copy of Form No.8A – Form for creating                 

                Gehan/Mortgage/Hypothecation

Ext.R3 – Security bond in loan No.20256/18 of Rs.17,00,000/-.

Ext.R4 - Copy of Outward Register.

Ext.R5 -PLP No.398/2022 filed by opposite party before Idukki District

              Legal Service Authority.

 

                                                                                              Forwarded by Order  

 

 

                                                                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR