Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/188/2021

T V Chandran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sreemathi Anupama - Opp.Party(s)

29 Dec 2023

ORDER

C.D.R.C. Kasaragod
Kerala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/188/2021
( Date of Filing : 29 Oct 2021 )
 
1. T V Chandran
Thelakattu House, Kollada, Kamballur PO, Cherupuzha Via 670511
Kannur District
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sreemathi Anupama
The Branch Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank, Cherupuzha
Kannur
Kerala
2. Kerala Gramin Bank
Cherupuzha Branch
Kannur
kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. KRISHNAN K PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Beena.K.G. MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 Dec 2023
Final Order / Judgement

            D.O.F:29/10/2021      

                                                                                                             D.O.O:29/12/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.188/2021

Dated this, the 29th day of December 2023

 

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA. K.G                                      :MEMBER

 

T.V. Chandran

Thelakkattu House

Kollada

Kamballur P.O

Cherupuzha (Via) 670511                                                       : Complainant

                                                                                   

                                                                                    And

 

1. Sreemathi.Anupama

Branch Manager

Kerala Gramin Bank Cherupuzha

Kannur District

 

2. Kerala Gramin Bank Cherupuzha Branch,                          : Opposite Parties

Kannur District.

(Adv: K.P Subash Chandran OP 1& 2)

ORDER

SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

     The facts of the case is that the complainants wife Premavally availed an agricultural loan of Rs. 75,000/- from Opposite Party Bank on 08/02/2015agreeying to repay it with 4% interest thereon.  Despite difficulties she repaid the amount of Rs. 1,10,400/- on 09/10/2019 interest of Rs. 40400/- is collected instead of Rs. 2800/-, even after repayment opposite party demand notice is sent threatening recovery by attachment, the act of Opposite Party caused mental agony, complainant claims compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the litigation.

2.     The Opposite Party filed written version alleging that complainant is not a consumer; the complaint is filed by husband of the consumer for his wife is not maintainable at law.  Loan of Rs.70,000/- is obtained by his wife on 18/02/2015, which is renewed on 16/02/2016 later notice issued to renew the loan on 09/02/2017 and 13/04/2018 but the loan is neither repaid nor renewed.  Bank sent a notice dated 05/10/2019, wife renewed the loan on 09/10/2019 and loan renewal letter is signed on 15/02/2021 and complaint is filed on 05/11/2021.  There is no deficiency in service or negligence by bank and no compensation is payable and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3.    The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1.  Complainant filed document, Ext A1 to A5.  Ext A1 is the disability certificate of wife of complainant.  Ext A2 reply sent by bank, Ext A3 letter by Opposite Party, Ext A4 notice issued by bank on 05/10/2019 and Ext A5 is letter issued by Opposite party bank Dt: 18/09/2019.  As per contentions following points raised for consideration.

a) whether there is any deficiency in service of Opposite Party in collecting the money due to the bank, or any deficiency in service by not sending reminder notice regularly during loan period or later and whether complainant entitled to any compensation and if so for what reliefs?

4.     The complaint is filed by husband of the complainant.  Husband is not a consumer complainant is not filed for on behalf of wife but latter produced a letter signed by wife declaring that complaint is filed by husband on her behalf with her consent and the case is accepted.

5.  The case of the complainant is that his wife availed the loan agreeing to repay it with interest.  On demand he repaid it in full with interest.  Grievance is that regular notice not received reminding the amount due.  If reminder is sent interest could have been minimized.  Even after repayment demand notice is issued claiming the amount is in due.

6.     The complainant has no case interest rate or amount of loan collected is in excess of the really due.  Sending demand notice by bank by itself is not a deficiency in service to cause to suffer mental agony due to negligent acts and dereliction of duty by bank.  Considering the fact that loan term is one year loan is obtained in 2015, loan reminder letter is sent, amount as per demand is paid to Opposite Party bank without protest, complaint filed after 21 months after payment of loan amount due shows that complaint is filed as an afterthought without any bonafide and complainant himself without raising any specific legal ground how complainant is legally entitled to claim back the amount repaid when she has no claim of excess payment and thus complainant is not entitled to any compensation and thus complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.

     Sd/-                                                                                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Disability Certificate

A2- Reply sent by bank

A3- Pass book copy

A4- Notice issued by bank Dt: 05/10/2019

A5- Notice issued by bank 18/09/2019

B1- Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans

B2- KCC Review format

B3- Notice Dt: 13/04/2018

B4- Notice  Dt: 09/02/2017

Witness Examined

Pw1- T.V Chandran

      Sd/-                                                                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

 

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. KRISHNAN K]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Beena.K.G.]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.