State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
I.N.S. Kattabomman Co-Operatrive ... vs A. Santhanam on 19 October, 2012
BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT MADURAI, BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH. Present: Thiru.J. JAYARAM, Presiding Judicial Member Thiru.S. SAMBANDAM, Member F.A.No.92/2012 (F.A.No.257/2011 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai) (Against the order in C.C.No.79/2008 on the file of DCDRF, Tirunelveli) FRIDAY, THE 19th OF OCTOBER 2012. 1. Selvi Antony Sharmila, Secretary, I.N.S. Kattabomman Co-Operatrive Thrift and Credit Society, Vijayanagaram, 8/2, Muthu Building, Parappadi, Tirunelveli District. 2. Sangili Rajan, Special Officer, I.N.S. Kattabomman Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, Vijayanagaram, 8/2, Muthu Building, Parappadi, Tirunelveli District. Appellant/opposite Party Vs A. Santhanam, S/o. Arumugam, Engine Driver, I.N.S. Kattabomman Fire Station, Vijayanagaram, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Appellant/Opposite party: Mr.M.A. Ruba, Advocate. Counsel for Respondents/complainant: M/s. M.P.Senthil, Advocate. This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 18.10.2012 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following: ORDER
Thiru. J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.79/2008 dated 24.03.2010 allowing the complaint.
1) The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a member of the I.N.S. Kattabomman Employees Co-operative Society and the 1st opposite party is the Secretary and the 2nd opposite party is the Special Officer thereof. On 04.05.2007, the complainant applied for a loan from the Society and one Kumar who was an associate member of the society singed the loan application of the complainant as a guarantor. The complainant did not hear anything from the opposite parties and so on 06.12.2007 he met the opposite parties in person who told him that his loan would be sanctioned within two days.
The complainant received a letter from the opposite parties on 11.12.2007 advising him to file the loan application with A class member as a guarantor. The above said Kumar who signed as a guarantor for the complainant had been sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- by the opposite parties and so he is eligible to be a guarantor and the complainant sent a reply to the opposite parties stating that the above said Kumar is an eligible guarantor. He did not receive any intimation from the opposite parties and so on 21.02.2008 he sent a notice to the opposite parties. Belatedly, he received a letter dated 08.03.2008 from the 1st opposite party stating that his loan was sanctioned on 07.03.2008. Ultimately, the complainant received the cheque from the 1st opposite party on 25.03.2008. The inordinate delay in sanctioning the loan by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards loss and another sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service on their part and a sum of Rs.3200/- being the interest paid by him to the money lenders and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.
2) According to the opposite parties, Kumar, an associate member/nominal member of the association had signed the complainants loan application as a guarantor and Kumar was not a member of the society and so he could not be a guarantor. After receipt of reply from the complainant, the opposite parties clarified the position with the concerned Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies regarding the eligibility of the associate member to be guarantor and the position was clarified by the Deputy Registrar by the letter dated 09.01.2008 informing that the associate member could be guarantor for loan. Soon after this, the loan was sanctioned to the complainant and the amount was disbursed to him by way of cheque. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3) The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on their part and to pay the costs of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.
4) It is first contended by the opposite parties that in view of section 90 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Honble Supreme Court in the following case, has laid down that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the members and the Co-operative Societies, as neither section 90 nor section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, ousts the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum and that the remedies available to an aggrieved party under the Consumer Protection Act, are wider;
The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society Vs M. Lalitha, (dead) through Legal Representatives and others reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 448.
Therefore, the contention that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is untenable.
5) The appellants/opposite parties would further contend that sanctioning of loan cannot be claimed as a matter of right and not granting loan cannot be construed as deficiency in service and negligence. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case the loan application was not rejected but the loan was sanctioned after inordinate delay which cannot be justified and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and so the contention of the opposite parties in this regard is unsustainable.
6) The appellants/opposite parties would further contend that the person by name Kumar who signed as guarantor in the loan application of the complainant was only an associate member who was not eligible to be a guarantor and so they addressed the concerned Deputy Registrar to clarify whether the associate could be a guarantor and on receipt of the clarification on 09.01.2008 that an associate member could be a guarantor for loan, the complainants loan was sanctioned on 07.03.2008 and hence the delay in sanctioning the loan.
7) Admittedly, the associate member by name Kumar has availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite parties society and it follows that he is an eligible member to be a guarantor for another loan and therefore no necessity arose for the opposite parties to clarify whether he was eligible to be a guarantor and the decision to clarify was only to deliberately cause delay in sanctioning the loan to the complainant. Therefore, the abnormal delay of several months amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no force in the submission of the appellants/opposite parties that the prolonged delay was due to the clarification with the Deputy Registrar, is unacceptable. Therefore, it is clearly established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties at every stage and even after clarification.
8) The District Forum has held that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and allowed the complaint and passed orders directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony caused due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and costs of Rs.5000/- are on the higher side and so we are inclined to reduce the amounts.
9) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation for mental agony due to deficiency in service and to pay costs of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant. No order as to costs in this appeal.
Sd/-
S. SAMBANDAM Sd/-
J. JAYARAM MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER