State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Special Officer Dharasuram Primary ... vs G.K. Padmanabhan 4, Krishnappan West ... on 15 April, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice M.THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru J. JAYARAM, M.A.,M.L., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Thiru S. SAMBANDAM MEMBER II F.A.NO.507/2008 (Against order in CC.NO.32/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Thanjavur) DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL 2011 1.
The Special Officer Dharasuram Primary Agricultural Co.operative Bank Ltd., Dharasuram & Post- 612 702 Kumbakonam Taluk Thanjavur District
2. The Secretary Dharasuram Primary Agriculture Cooperative Bank Ltd., Appellants/ Opposite parties Vs. G.K. Padmanabhan S/o. G. Krishnaraj 4, Krishnappan West Street Mothilal Street, Kumbakonam Post Thanjavur District Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties for various reliefs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.2.2008 in OP.No.32/2005.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 30.3.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:
Counsel for the appellants/ Opposite parties: M/s. P.S. Sivashanmuga Sundaram Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Mr. R. Ravi M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The respondent/ complainant, pledging his jewels on 5.2.1990, 6.9.90, 8.10.2010, 14.12.91, obtained loan, being the member of the society. As per the terms and conditions of the loan sanctioning order, the debt should be discharged within a year, failing which auction should be taken, issuing notice. The opposite parties having failed to do so, appeared to have auctioned the jewels, on 14.8.2002, after 12 years, which should be construed as deficiency in service.
Having realized the amount in the auction, they have issued a notice to the complainant, demanding a balance of Rs.16,835/-, which the complainant is not liable to pay, since the loan was closed, on auction. By the conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant not only suffered mental agony, but also suffered monetary loss of Rs.23,787/-, for which he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1 lakh also. Thus alleging deficiency, claiming a sum of Rs.1 lakh, a consumer complaint came to be filed.
3. The opposite parties admitting the pledging of jewels, raising loan, as well auctioning of the jewels, resisted the complaint, contending that the complainant ought to have paid the interest half yearly, failing which he is liable to pay penal interest, that in the public auction, only a sum of Rs.23,650/- was realized by selling the jewels pledged, leaving the balance of Rs.16,835/- payable by the complainant, for which arbitration proceedings was initiated, which is liable to be paid by the complainant, and this being the position, there is no question of negligent or deficiency in service, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum, based upon the admitted facts, as well as slackness or lethargic attitude, shown by the opposite party, deduced a conclusion, that the opposite party having auctioned the pledged jewels, realising the amount, closing the loan, not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.16,835/-, from the complainant, whereas they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-, as compensation for mental agony, for which an order came to be passed on 21.2.2008, which is impugned.
5. As evidenced by Ex.B3, admittedly also, the complainant had pledged his jewels and raised loan from the opposite party bank, being a member of the Agricultural Cooperative Bank. At the time of borrowing the loan, he had also executed a security form, including promissory notes. As per the terms and conditions available in Ex.B3, loan should be discharged within 12 months, which contemplates payment of interest also periodically, failing to pay, warranting penal interest also. The complainant though had obtained loan, elsewhere in the year 1990, 1991, failed to pay either the principle , or the interest. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the opposite party ought to have issued notice after the lapse of 12 months, the period contemplated for discharge of the loan, and auctioned the pledged items, realized the debt also, which they failed and that should be construed as deficiency, as correctly, concluded by the District Forum, on which basis alone, a case came to be filed.
6. The opposite party having failed to take appropriate action, calculated interest, penal interest, then for that interest, and penal interest etc., for more than 12 years, which was not expected from the bank, established for serving the poor agriculturist. After the lapse of 12 years, when the property was auctioned, admittedly it appears, it had not realized the accumulated interest and principle, and after adjusting the amount, there was a balance of RS.16,835/-, which was demanded as per the notice dt.2.8.2004, then alone the complainant woke up, questioned the conduct of the opposite party. As seen from the loan register, and other connected documents, the loan was closed, probably at the time of the auctioning, and therefore there is no question of paying the balance, by the complainant, though there are certain conditions, as if the complainant had agreed to pay the amount, if it exceeded the value of the property. That condition, can be made applicable, and put in force, if the opposite party had not committed any negligent act, or in other words, if they have followed the procedure properly, as said above. If they had sold the property pledged viz. jewels, within 12 months, certainly that would have fetched the reasonable amount, preventing further interest the debt would have been wiped out. Thus the opposite party, having failed to perform their duty, taking advantage of the terms and conditions, after more than 12 years, are not entitled to claim any amount, from the complainant, that too, based upon the closed account, and in this view, the direction issued by the District Forum, not to claim any amount from the complainant, appears to be well acceptable, based upon reasons also.
Since, there was default on both the side, in not paying the amount as agreed, and not taking the action, as available under the terms and conditions, we feel it may not be proper to direct the opposite party to pay compensation. Hence we are inclined to set aside the order of the compensation, confirming the cost only.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum in CC.No.32/2005 dt.21.2.2008, setting aside the order of compensation alone, confirming otherwise. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM J. JAYARAM M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIALMEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/Bench-1/Coop Bank