Kerala

Idukki

CC/138/2019

Thomas p c - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K M Sanu

30 Oct 2024

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING : 18.7.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   30^th  day of October, 2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.138/2019

Between

Complainants       : 1.  Thomas P.C.,

  Pamprayil House,

   Pannimattam P.O.,

  Thodupuzha.

        2.  Nancy Thomas, W/o. Thomas,

  Pamprayil House,

   Pannimattam P.O.,

  Thodupuzha.

 (Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Party     :       The Manager,

 Union Bank of India,

 Kalayanthani Branch,

 Kalayanthani P.O.,

 Thodupuzha – 685588.

(By Adv: Clareness Joseph)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act, for short).  Case of the complainant is briefly discussed here under :

 

First complainant is the husband of 2^nd complainant.  Both are eking out the livelihood by cultivating pineapple in lands leased by them.  They have an extent of 15 acres in their possession, for this cultivation.  In 2009, complainants have availed a housing loan of Rs.3 lakhs from opposite party, namely, Kalayanthani branch of Union Bank of India, represented by its manager.  Thereafter on 27.3.2015, they had availed a loan of Rs.4 lakhs and again on 6.3.2017 an amount of Rs.2 lakhs for agricultural purpose, from opposite party.  Total loan availed is Rs.9 lakhs.  Complainants were repaying the housing loan without default till 2019 February and other two loans till 2018.  As on 31.5.2019, Rs.4,75,470.60/- is outstanding towards the loan of Rs.4 lakhs, a sum of Rs.2,13,152/- towards loan of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs.2,38,746/- towards 3^rdagricultural loan of 2 lakhs.  Complainants were availing agricultural loan from opposite party for quite a long time and were repaying all loans so taken without default also.  As security for the loan, residential property of 2^nd complainant having an extent of 40 cents with a house in it was pledged to opposite party.  This compound is presently worth Rs.75 lakhs.  Owing to the floods which had inundated  the State in 2018, pineapple crop of complainants was totally lost.  Therefore, complainants were unable to repay the loan.  Though directions were given by Government for extending moratorium facility, rescheduling of loan and extension of loan repayment period, opposite party has not given this facility to complainants.  They are attempting to recover the entire loan arrears by proceeding against the residential property of 2^nd complainant.  Both are prepared to repay the loan if time is granted.  Withholding of moratorium facility, refusal to rescheduling the loan and refusal to extend the loan repayment period despite directions from the Government, amounts to deficiency in service.  On 2.7.2019, opposite party had sent a lawyer notice demanding payment of outstanding loan amount and threatened to proceed against the security in case of non-payment.  Complainants therefore pray for a direction against opposite party to recalculate loan dues by charging interest at agricultural loan rates and also to reschedule the loan and thereby extending loan repayment period.  A further direction is sought for, to deduct excessive interest and other charges from the outstanding loan amount.  Both complainants further claim a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- from opposite parties.  

 

2. Proceedings reveal that opposite party has not filed any written version and was set exparte.  Though an application has been filed by opposite party, to set aside the order making it exparte, it appears that the matter was not pursued actively by opposite party.  Written version has not come within the statutory time limit and thereafter within the grace period of 15 days.  Therefore, application for setting aside the exparte order cannot be entertained. We also notice that no sufficient cause for not filing written version within time has been mentioned by opposite party.  Case was thereafter posted for steps and then for evidence.  It is seen recorded in daily proceedings of 10/03/2021 that a written version was reportedly filed on that date which was months after opposite party had entered appearance on 19.8.2019. In fact no such written version is filed.  No steps were taken by both sides.  From the side of complainants, 1^st complainant was examined as PW1.  Exts.P1 and P2 were marked from their side.  Inadvertently, opposite party was also given an opportunity to tender evidence, despite the fact, no written version was filed by it.  Manager of opposite party was examined as RW1 and Exts.R1 to R6 were marked.  Thereafter evidence was closed and both sides were heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of opposite party ?

2)  Whether complainants are entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

3)  Final order and costs ?

 

 

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

 

According to complainants, refusal to extend moratorium facility, reluctance of opposite party to reschedule the loan and to extend loan repayment period despite directions by the Government amounts to deficiency in service.  Complainants have not produced any circular or government order which would entitle them for these facilities without any conditions.  They have admitted in the complaint itself that repayment of the loans was in arrears.  It is evident that there was default in repayment.  That apart, there is nothing to show that complainants have applied for availing moratorium facilities, rescheduling of loans or for extension of loan repayment period as such.  Without applying for these facilities, they cannot claim that there was refusal from the side of opposite party in granting these facilities which would tantamount to deficiency in service under the Act.  That apart, during his cross examination, 1^st complainant has admitted that this complaint was filed only for getting more time to repay the loan amount.  He has also admitted that as there was default in repayment of loan, they are not entitled for any facilities granted by the State such as moratorium, rescheduling of loan or extension of loan repayment period.  Finally, he has also admitted that both are liable to repay the loan amount as claimed by opposite parties along with interest and charges incurred.  He would say that as they had no other choice since they were facing financial difficulties, they were unable to repay the loan amount and that, they are prepared to repay by selling the residential compound occupied by them.  All these admissions are sufficient to show that there is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties.  Intention of complainant was only to gain more time to repay the loan amount along with interest and charges claimed by opposite party.  Hence we found that there is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite party.  Complainants are not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

4.  Point No.3 :

 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  Interim Stay granted is stand vacated.  

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the   30^th   day of October, 2024

 

Sd/-

 SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

       SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1        -  Thomas Chacko

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    -  Lawyer notice issued by the bank to complainants.

Ext.P2    -  Receipt for Rs.10,000/- dated 28.1.2019.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    -    Copy of instruction issued by the Convenor, SLBC Kerala and

General Manager of Canara Bank dated 21.8.2018.

Ext.R2    - Copy of instruction circular No.9181 dated 13.1.2012 from Central Office

of Union Bank of India.

Ext.R3    -    Statement of account for the period from 25.7.2013 to 3.11.2023.

Ext.R4    -    Statement of account for the period from 26.3.2014 to 3.11.2023.

Ext.R5    -    Statement of account for the period from 6.3.2017 to 2.11.2023.

Ext.R6    -    Statement of account for the period from 5.11.2009 to 2.11.2023.

 

 

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR