By: Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. On 18/08/2008 husband of the complainant named Ramankutty availed a loan of Rs.75,000/- and on 15/10/2010 he availed another loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party . The repayments of loans were regularly made by the husband of the complainant. Due to illness, husband of the complainant faced financial difficulties resulting default in the repayment. On 31/10/2017 husband of the complainant died. Due to the said demise of the loanee, repayment of loan defaulted and so the opposite party proceeded with recovery steps. The complainant and her family, who are living with dignity in the society, were afraid of loan recovery proceedings, compelled to manage money for repayment of loans due with the opposite party. The complainant made repayment of entire arrears with interest as directed by the opposite party on 03/03/2020. After a long period 2 years i.e on 07/01/2022 the complainant and her children received notices in connection with recovery proceedings initiated E P 237/2018 made in ARC No.2990/14. The issuance of recovery notices became a shame for the complainant and her family. According to the complainant, the person who brought recovery notice from the court informed her that the court is not aware of non existence of liability and foreclosure has been fixed on 11/02/2022 at 11 am in the day. When the complainant approached the opposite party to know the factual situation , the opposite party behaved in such a way to justify the negligent act of the bank without giving any consideration by ignoring the complainant who belonged in poor and scheduled caste family. The complainant and her family repaid the entire arrears with much constrain only to avoid the entire harassment caused by the foreclosure proceedings. The opposite party neglected to report the closure of loan before the court. The opposite party aced negligently and arbitrarily and committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. The opposite party is responsible for non withdrawal of unnecessary legal proceedings against the complainant. The opposite party acted illegally against a member of scheduled caste. So the complainant approached this Commission praying to get an order to compensate for the damage caused due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party. The complainant claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite party and also claimed Rs.25,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notice to the opposite party . The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. in the version the opposite party admitted the loans availed by deceased Mr. Ramankutty, who was the husband of the complainant. Due to default in repayment, the opposite party initiated proceedings as ARC 2990/2014 against the loanee before Assistant Registrar for Co-operative Societies, Nilambur. But the loanee did not make repayment and above numbered case adjudicated against the loanee. There was no repayment of arrears by the loanee and after a gap of 4 years execution proceeding No. E P 237/2018 was initiated before the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri against the above said Ramankutty. But due the death of loanee, legal heirs were impleaded and they appeared before the court. According to the opposite party the honourable court posted the case on 25/10/2019 for counter statement of the complainant and same was filed on the posted date. Subsequently the case was adjourned to some other dates and the complainant was also present on all the posting dates. On 29/02/2020 the complainant approached the opposite party to settle the case on the basis of the order made in ARC 2990/2014. As on date Rs.3,42,068/- was the total arrears and the opposite party provided a reduction of Rs.1,17,114/- to the complainant and she remitted the balance amount to close the loan. Due to Covid 19 pandemic case was not take up in the court and adjourned to other dates repeatedly. It is contended by the opposite party that even though a notice was issued to the complainant by the court on 01/01/2020, the counsel for the opposite party informed the court about closure of loan and as a result case was withdrawn on 11/02/2022. It is denied by opposite party in the version that the allegation of issuance of recovery notice by the court employees after reaching the residence of the complainant. According to the opposite party, the court employee served a notice under order 21 rule 66 to the complainant. The opposite party further stated that the complainant was present before the court in all the posting dates of the case and she could have been submitted the matter before the court as usual practice prevailed in the judicial proceedings. The opposite party denied the allegation that the opposite party behave in such a way to justify the negligent act of the bank without giving any consideration by ignoring the complainant, who belonged in a poor and scheduled case family. The opposite party provided reduction total amount which ought to have repaid by the complainant and it indicates to the good intention of the opposite party. All the allegations arised in the complaint are false and denied by the opposite party. After repayment of entire loan amount made on 03/03/2020, the case against the complainant did not take up before the court and adjourned for a long time due to lockdown protocol in connection with Covid 19 pandemic. If the case was taken up regularly on due posting date, definitely the opposite party would have withdrawn the case pending against the complaint. The opposite party had repeatedly contacted the complainant to repay the due amount but she did not turn up to heed the lawful demand. The complainant created trouble to the officials of the opposite party by filing complaint in different body with same allegation. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with compensatory cost.
4. Both the complainant and the opposite party filed affidavits and produced documents. The documents produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 to A8 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of notice issued to the complainant under order 21 rule 66 notices by the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri. Ext. A2 document is the copy of notice of proclamation sale of the property of the complainant issued by the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri. Ext. A3 document is the copy of Gahan Release Deed executed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ext. A4 document is the copy of from No. IV of gahan release deed. Ext. A5 document is a copy of the gehan release deed issued by the opposite party. Ext. A6 document is the copy of Gehan Release Deed. Ext. A7 document is the copy of letter dated 10/07/2022 issued by the Joint Registrar (General) Malappuram to the complainant. Ext. A8 document is the copy of letter dated 04/06/2022 issued by Assistant Registrar, Nilambur to the complainant. The documents produced by the opposite party is marked as Ext. B1 to B2. Ext. B1 document is the copy of Account details of the loanee named Ramankutty. Ext. B2 document is the copy of proceeding paper in Execution Petition No.237/2018 of Munsiff Court, Manjeri.
5. Heard both parties in details. Perused documents and affidavits. The points considered by the Commission are :-
1) Whether the opposite parties committed any kind of deficiency in service towards the complainant.
2) Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1 & 2
The complainant contended that her deceased husband availed two loans of Rs.75, 000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- from the bank of the opposite party. Even though deceased husband made repayment regularly in the beginning stage, after the sad demise of the loanee repayment was defaulted and the opposite party initiated recovery proceedings against the legal heirs of deceased loanee . According to the complainant, she along with family members repaid the entire arrears with much constrains to avoid the embarrassment caused by the foreclosure proceedings. It is stated by the complainant that after a long period of around 2 years i.e. on 07/01/2022 the complainant and her family received notices in connection with recovery proceedings from the honourable Munssif’s Court, Manjeri. The complainant produced the notice issued by the Hon’ble Munssif’s Court under order 21 rules 66 to the complainant and same is marked as Ext. A1 document. Ext. A2 document is also produced by the complainant and same is treated as part of Ext. A1 document. According to the complainant the issuance of recovery notice became a shame for the entire family, when they lives with dignity in the society. It is further stated; she came to know that the opposite party did not disclose the fact of closure of loan and also failed to withdraw the proceedings pending against the complainant before the Munssif’s Court, Manjeri. According to the complainant, the opposite party has no right to proceed with the case as the complainant already repaid the entire due amount to the opposite party. The complainant produced Ext. A3 to A6 document to prove the closure of loan arrears and thereby released the mortgaged property from the bank. So as per the contention of the complainant the opposite party committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Ext. A3 to A6 documents were issued to the complainant showing the declaration on the part of the opposite party to reveal that the gehan property is free from all in cumbrances as there is no liability existed.
7. It is averred by the opposite party that there is no deficiency of service committed towards the complainant. The opposite party admitted the availment of loans by the deceased husband of the complainant and due to default in repayment recovery proceedings initiated against legal heirs of deceased loanee. When going through the records available before the Commission , Ext. A3 to A6 documents clearly shows that no liability is existed in connection with the loans availed by the deceased husband of the complainant. The opposite party produced Ext. B1 document which reveals the transaction in connection with loan. The Commission need not consider Ext. B1 document at this moment as there is no dispute with regard to the account of the deceased loanee. According to the opposite party , after repayment of entire arrears of the loan amount made on 03/03/2020 the case pending against the complainant did not taken up for consideration by court and repeatedly adjourned for a long time due to Covid 19 Pandemic protocol. The opposite party produced Ext. B2 document to support the contention made in the version and affidavit. Ext. B2 document is the copy of proceeding paper of the execution petition No.237/2018 on the file Hon’ble Munssiff’s Court, Manjeri. It is admitted by both parties that liability was discharged on 03/03/2020. As per Ext. B2 document, it can be find that on 09/03/2020 Hon’ble Munssiff’s Court, Manjeri considered the case against the complainant herein and issued order for sale on 20/05/2020. Thereafter case posted on 20/05/2020. On 20/05/2020 case again adjourned due to Covid protocol. Later, the case was adjourned to other dates consecutively due to Covid 19 protocol. But this Commission cannot accept the contention made by the opposite party with regard to the missed opportunity to withdraw the case due to Covid 19 Protocol. Though counts were temporarily suspended its ordinary function due to Covid 19 protocol, but there were no impediments to adjudicate matters of urgent importance. So during the proceedings of the case took place on 01/01/2022, Hon’ble court issued notice against the complainant herein under order 21 rule 66 of CPC. It can be find that the opposite party also acted negligently on 09/03/2020 when the court considered the case against the complainant. The opposite party did not withdrawn case against the complainant despite repayment of entire arrears. The act of the opposite party can be considered as deficiency in service committed towards the complainant. It is contended in the complaint that issuance of notice to the complainant during the proceeding of EP 237/2018 became a shame for the complainant and her family especially when they live with dignity in the society. It is clearly stated in the affidavit of the complainant that the steps taken by the opposite party to recover the arrear amount caused much mental and physical harassment to her husband leading to loss of his life. It is further stated by the complainanant that the complainant repaid entire loan amount in lump sum with much constrains only to avoid the harassment caused by the foreclosure proceedings. The complainanant produced Ext. A7 documents to prove the case of deficiency in service alleged against the opposite party. Ext. A7 document is the letter issued by Joint Registrar Co-operative societies, Malappuram. Ext. A7 document stated that the opposite party committed serious lapse in causing delay to report the repayment of arrears made by the complainant in the Munssif’s Court Manjeri. Moreover it is submitted in the affidavit that the debt relief for the loan sanctioned by the government to the member of scheduled caste was not paid on time by the opposite party nor was it given to the complainant even after repayment of loan. The complainant produced Ext. A8 document is the letter dated 04/06/2022 issued by Assistant Registrar (General), Nilambur to the complainant. As per Ext. A8 document the opposite party received Rs.41171/- from government as debit relief to the complainant. It is evident from the available document that the opposite party failed to distribute the amount received as debt relief to the complainant in proper time During the time of hearing the complainant informed the Commission that she has received Rs.41,171/- from the opposite party on 27/07/2022. In this juncture, the Commission is holding the opinion that it is optional to the complainant to take legal action before appropriate forum against the opposite party for dereliction committed in the distribution of fund to the complainant who belonged in scheduled caste.
So on the basis of above discussion this Commission finds that the opposite party committed serious deficiency in service towards the complainant. In allowing compensation, the Commission is considering the reduction of amount granted to the complainant in repayment of arrears. So the complaint is allowed in the following manner.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service by the opposite party .
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as the cost of the proceedings to the complainant
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order; otherwise the entire amount shall bear 9% of interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A8
Ext.A1: copy of notice issued to the complainant under order 21 rule 66 notices by the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri.
Ext.A2: copy of notice of proclamation sale of the property the complainant issued by the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri.
Ext A3: copy of Gahan Release Deed executed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ext A4: copy of from No. IV of gahan release deed.
Ext A5: copy of the gehan release deed issued by the opposite party.
ExtA6: copy of Gehan Release Deed.
Ext.A7: Copy of letter dated 10/07/2022 issued by the Joint Registrar (General) Malappuram to the complainant.
Ext.A8: copy of letter dated 04/06/2022 issued by Assistant Registrar, Nilambur to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 and B 2
Ext.B1: copy of Account details of the loanee named Ramankutty.
Ext.B2: copy of proceeding paper in Execution Petition No.237/2018 of Munsiff Court, Manjeri.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
