Kerala

Idukki

CC/233/2024

Sisidharan D - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thodupuzha Rural co-operative society ltd - Opp.Party(s)

03 Dec 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 11.11.2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   3^rd  day of  December,  2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.233/2024

     Between

Complainant  :        Shashidharan D.,

Alayath House,

Manakkad P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685608

        And

Opposite Party  :        The Secretary,

Thodupuzha Rural Co-operative Society Ltd. No.I-557,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685584.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.7 lakhs on 4.5.2013, from opposite party, namely, Thodupuzha Rural Co-operative Society Ltd., represented by its secretary.  Thereafter on 4.6.2013, one Babu John had availed a loan from opposite party on the security of immovable property of complainant.  Said Babu John had not repaid the loan.  Instead of proceeding directly against Babu John, opposite party had proceeded against complainant, for recovery of loan given to him (Babu John).  This is incorrect and illegal.  On 14.8.2024, complainant had received a demand notice from opposite party seeking repayment of Rs.47,87,730/-.  Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.7 lakhs only from opposite party.  Complainant fails to understand how he could be found due to return Rs.47,87,730/-.  In the meanwhile complainant had repaid Rs.6,40,000/-.  Though he had demanded receipt for the amount paid by him, opposite party had not given any receipt.  Complainant has receipts for Rs.30 lakhs in his possession.  Complainant is not legally bound to repay Rs.47,87,730/-.  He is ready to pay due amount in accordance with law.  Opposite party had, earlier, repeatedly asked him to visit their office and to renew the loan.  On those occasions, they had obtained signature of complainant in blank papers.  Complainant was informed that these are necessary for renewing the loan taken by him.  Complainant prays for assessment of the exact amount to be paid by him towards the loan.  He also submitted that loan of Babu John should be attempted to be realise from him first and only after that opposite party should proceed against him.  Complainant also seeks Rs.10,000/- as damages.

 

2.  Along with the complaint, complainant has submitted copy of the outer page of his current account passbook and demand notice issued to him in EP495/24 by the Special Sale Officer of Thodupuzha SCB Group wherein he is asked to remit Rs.47,87,730/-.  Notice is seen dat4ed 19.8.2024.  

 

Upon perusing complaint and documents, we were of the view that complaint cannot be admitted without hearing complainant.  Hence case was posted for admission hearing and complaint was heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are:

1)  Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2)  Order to be passed ?

 

3.  Point No.1 :

 

According to complainant, he has taken a loan of Rs.7 lakhs from opposite party.  Though he claimed to have repaid Rs.6,40,000/- there are no receipts to prove this remittance.  Even after it is presumed that no receipt is given to complainant by opposite party, complainant could have verified the bank account statement and attempted to prove the remittances claimed by him.  However, he further claims in the complaint that he has receipts for Rs.30 lakhs in his possession.  Both the statements are contradictory.  When complainant has receipts for Rs.30 lakhs, it appears that his liability is far more than Rs.7 lakhs borrowed by him. His contentions that opposite party should not proceed against him in connection with the loan taken by Babu John as he was only a surety are devoid of any merits whatsoever.   It is the discretion of bank to proceed against the property of particular borrower or his guarantor in his discretion.  Even as per the                complaint averments, complainant was liable to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs in 2013. 11years have passed. Claim of complainant that he has receipts for Rs.30 lakhs in his possession bellies the falsehood of complaint.  Evidently, complainant had not disclosed the entire facts before this Commission.  Demand notice is issued in EP 495/24 by Special Sale Office of Thodupuzha SCB Group. EP is, obviously, preceded by a suit before the Registrar of societies. Complainant has not mentioned anything about the case against him in the complaint. He has no case that decree has been challenged by him before appropriate authority either.  Liability has been quantified and found due from complainant by a competent authority. Therefore, Prima facie, we find nothing wrong in the figure Rs.47,87,730/- appearing in the demand notice shown as the amount due from complainant. As first relief, this Commissionis asked to correctly assess the amount due from complainant to opposite party. This is something which the appellate or revisional authority under the co-operative societies act should enquire into if an appeal or revision is preferred from the decree.  The prayer itself is not sustainable and not the one which can be granted under Section 39(1) of the Act.  That being so, corollary prayer for damages is also unsustainable.

 

To put it shortly, Prima facie, the complaint does not reveal a cause of action as against opposite party.  Hence the same is rejected.  

 

        Pronounced by this Commission on this the    3^rd  day of December, 2024

 

    Sd/-

        SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

    Sd/-

    SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

             Forwarded by Order,

 

 

         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR