By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case which is necessary to dispose this complaint in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant is running a business namely Jemco Foods in Kinfra Industrial Park at Chundale, Wayanad. He availed a cash credit facility of Rs.6,00,000/- and a medium term loan for Rs.19,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties on 20.01.2011. He was in prompt in remitting the instalments towards the loan amount. But, due to some loss in his business in the year 2014, he failed to remit the instalments in time. When he contacted, the third Opposite Party assured to give agricultural loan for Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of Kunjami one of his guarantors on security of her property and he agreed to adjust the said amount towards his business loan. Thereafter the Complainant done everything to get this loan. Then the bank allowed the loan and third Opposite Party undertook that he shall adjust the amount towards his business loan. But on 23.09.2015, the Complainant received a letter from the bank informing that this loan became overdue and he has to pay Rs.3,76,000/- to regularise the loan. They warned him that they will initiate recovery proceedings against him. When he contacted the third Opposite Party, he advised him to ignore the notice and assured that he will adjust this amount towards his business account. Even then, on 14.10.2015, he received another notice directing him to close the said loan. Even though the complainant was ready to remit Rs.2,00,000/- towards the loan, the third Opposite Party approached his guarantors and intimidated them by stating that they are taking action against SARFAESI Act towards the property of his guarantor Nasar. He threatened their family that he will push them from their house. He came to the Kinfra and directed the Complainant to close his business. Thereafter, bank has filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Majistrate, Kalpetta and filed a suit before D.R.T, Ernakulam under the provision of SARFAESI Act. The third Opposite Party has also sent a letter to Kinfra with false allegations against him with an intention to make loss to his business. The third Opposite Party did not allow the Complainant to settle the dispute before the Megha Adalath held at SBI branch Kainatty. When the Complainant tried to settle the matter in the adalath held at Thiruvananthapuram, the bank did not give back the documents on that day as agreed. So, the guarantor Nasar was unable to register sale deed as per the sale agreement he executed. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency of service upon the Opposite Party and to get compensation from the Opposite Parties for the intimidation, defamation, cheating and for mental agony with cost.
3. The Opposite parties filed version denying all the allegations against them in the complaint.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in the service of Opposite Parties?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, Ext.A1 to A2 from the side of Complainant. There is no evidence from the side of Opposite Parties. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- PW1 has deposed in conformity with his complaint. Ext.A1 is the copy of the notice sent by him to the Opposite Parties. Ext.A2 is their reply notice. Though the Counsel for the Opposite parties started cross examination, due to the adamant nature of PW1, Complainant further cross examination was adjourned. Even though, sufficient time was given to him, he failed to come before this Commission. Even then, it can be seen that the Opposite parties have covered all most all aspects. Though, PW1 deposed his case in conformity with the complaint, here absolutely there is no supporting evidence to prove that he was intimidated, defamed and cheated by Opposite Parties and thus he suffered mental agony. Except his oral evidence, there is no independent evidence or documentary evidence to prove that he was intimidated, defamed and cheated by Opposite Parties. Though he alleged serious allegations against the Opposite Parties, admittedly, he has not given any police complaint or any complaint to the higher authorities of the bank. Therefore, his oral testimony is not sufficient to hold that there is deficiency in service as alleged. Thus the Point No.1 is found against the complainant.
7. Point No.2:- Since, Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21st day of June 2022.
Date of Filing:-23.03.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Jamsheer. T. K. Business.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:02.01.2018.
A2. Reply Notice. Dt:27.01.2018.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
