D.O.F:13/05/2022
D.O.O:29/02/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.91/2022
Dated this, the 29th day of February 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Aysha, aged 87 years
W/o Kunhammu
Kizhoor House, Chandragiri Post
Kalanad Village Kasaragod Taluk & District
Represented by her son Mr. Abdul Rahiman : Complainant
Aged 45 years, S/o Kunhammu
Kizhoor House, Chandragiri Post
Kalanad Village Kasaragod Taluk & District
(Adv: Suresh.K.P)
And
The Branch Manager
M/s The Kasaragod Primary Co-op: & Rural
Development Bank. Ltd
No.113, Kasaragod -671121 : Opposite Party
(Adv: Jithesh Babu. P.K)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by complainant for a direction to Opposite party to furnish loan agreement, re-payment chart and statement of account and to settle loan amount as per terms of loan agreement and compensation for deficiency in service and cost of litigation.
Facts of the case is that the complainant availed a loan to Rs. 5,00,000/- from Opposite Party by mortgaging the property measuring as extent of 0.31 cent in R.S 9/2 pt of Kalanad Village. The complainant repaid major portion of the loan amount, and due to Covid- 19 pandamic crisis there is same amount due. On 27/04/2022 opposite Party affixed auction notice of the above said property with an intention to sale the same without complying the process of law. The complainant is willing to close the loan amount but Opposite party demanding huge exorbitant interest the complainant apprehends that Opposite Party is trying to sell the property. If opposite Party sold the property it will cause heavy loss to the complainant. The complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from Opposite party side for which he claims compensation.
The Opposite party appeared and filed version denying the allegations and contended that complainant is a defaulter and a huge amount is due to the bank as per loan agreement and prayed to dismiss the complaint .
In this case repeated chance given to the complainant to adduce evidence. But complainant failed to adduce evidence, only one receipt for payment of Rs. 1,32,000/- is produced. But Opposite Party produced detailed report of the due amount from complainant side. So in the absence of evidence for deficiency in service and demand for exorbitant interest, The Commission is of the opinion that complainant failed to prove his case. In the result complaint stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
