Kerala

Idukki

CC/8/2021

Ambili alex - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv: K B Selvam

22 Feb 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 21.1.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   22^nd  day of February,  2023

Present :

                   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.8/2021

Between

Complainant                             :   Ambili Alex,

                                                               Vazheparambil Agencies,

                                                               Thopramkudy P.O.,

                                                               Vathikudy, Idukki.     

     (By Adv: K.B. Selvam)

        And

Opposite Party                                   :   The Manager,

                                                               Union Bank,

                                                               APCOS Building,

                                                             Thopramkudy P.O.,

                                                              Vathikudy, Idukki.

   (By Adv: Sijimon K. Augustine)

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3 lakhs in connection with her furniture business from opposite party, namely, Manager of Thopramkudy branch of Union Bank, under Mudra scheme.  Loan was to be repaid in equated monthly instalments of Rs.7,500/-.  Due to demonetisation and floods, business of complainant had suffered a set back, owing to which she was unable to pay monthly instalments.  Opposite party had warned her that her CIBIL score will be reduced.  Though the complainant requested more time for clearing dues and for payment of arrears, by making part payments, her request was declined. On 20.1.2021, opposite party had come to the residence of complainant and threatened that recovery steps will be initiated without further notice, if entire outstanding loan amount is not paid.  Complainant is in dire circumstances.  She has been put to much inconvenience and mental strain due to the actions of opposite party.  She claims that acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Complainant prays for a direction against opposite party to exclude exorbitant interest rate charged under Mudra scheme in violation of Central Government norms, for award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. 

                                                                                                            (cont....2)

 

- 2  -

2.  Opposite party had appeared and filed written version contending as here under :

 

According to opposite party, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  There is no cause of action against opposite party.  It is true that complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3 lakhs on 22.3.2016, from opposite party bank.  Loan was primarily secured by hypothecation of goods and stock.  Complainant had also executed a demand promissory note and  loan agreement in favour of opposite party bank on 22.3.2016.  As per loan agreement, complainant is bound to pay loan amount with interest at 11.10% with monthly rates in 60 equated monthly instalments, beginning from April 2016.  Agreement on rate of interest (at base rate) was also executed by complainant on 22.3.2016 itself.  In case of default in payment of instalments, complainant had specifically agreed to pay additional interest upon rates fixed by opposite party.  In view of default in repayment of loan instalments, complainant is bound to pay additional interest at 2% which is the prevailing rate.  Complainant had also agreed to pay  varying rates of interest from time to time as per the directives of RBI and as per prescribed by the Bank.  It is incorrect to say that bank is charging exorbitant rate of interest.  Complainant had defaulted in payment of loan instalments.  Several notices including legal notice were issued to complainant seeking clearance of loan.  However, complainant has not repaid the outstanding loan amount.  It is incorrect to say that the manager and staff of opposite party had gone to house of complainant and threatened her to vacate the house or of recovery proceedings in case entire loan amount is not paid.  Non-payment or default in payment of loan instalments ordinarily reflects in the CIBIL score of customer.  It is incorrect to say that opposite party had refused to accept part payment.  Complainant had never approached the bank with request for making part payment.  Considering difficulty of complainant, matter was considered in Adalath and settled thereto.  However, complainant had withdrawn from settlement and left without  signing the award passed in Lok Adalath.  Opposite party is entitled to recover balance loan amount with interest as agreed upon by complainant.  Present complaint is only a malafide one without any factual basis.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party.  Complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

 

3.  After filing of written version, case was posted for steps and then for evidence. Since no steps were taken by both sides, case posted for evidence. Despite repeated adjournments granted at the request of  complainant had failed to turn up and give evidence in support of her case.  On 6.12.2022, adjournment was granted to complainant upon condition that she pays Rs.500/- as costs which were to be deposited in Legal Aid Fund of this Commission, within 5 days.  This condition was not fulfilled.  On the adjourned date, i.e., 11.1.2023, complainant had remained absent.  No witness was present on her side.  There were no applications or representations on her behalf.  Hence complainant’s evidence was closed.  Counsel for opposite party submitted that opposite                                                                                                         (cont....3)

-  3  -

party has no evidence as complainant had failed to give any evidence in this matter.  Hence evidence was closed.  We have heard the learned counsel for opposite party.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there is no deficiency in service ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for ?

3)  Final Order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

          No documents were produced along with complaint or subsequently, by complainant.  Reading of complaint would reveal that the case projected is mainly of inability on the part of complainant to pay of loan instalments due to factors like demonetisation and floods as such.  May be business had run into loss.  However, this will not absolve the complainant from her liability to pay the loan amount due to opposite party.  There is nothing in the complaint as to what was the agreed rate of interest and extent to which excessive interest was charged, purportedly.  No deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out from the side of opposite parties.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.3 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  Stay order passed in I.A. No.2/2021 shall stand vacated and application dismissed, in accordance with the final order passed herein. 

 

          Parties shall take back extra set of copies produced, without delay.

 

             Pronounced by this Commission on this the  22^nd  day of February, 2023

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

     SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                             Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                   Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

                                                                                 Forwarded by Order,

Appendix : Nil.                                                     

 

 

                                                                            ASSISTANT REGISTRAR