Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
K. Surendra Mohan, President, T.S.P. Moosath, Judicial Member, Ranjit R., Member, Beenakumari A., Member and Radhakrishnan K.R., Member
Secretary Pulpally Service Co. Operative
Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Padmini – Respondent
First Appeal No.A/16/215
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/11/2015 in Case No.CC/237/2015 of District Wayanad)
Decided on 15.7.2021
For the Appellant:K.T. Sidhiq and M. Balu, Advocates
For the Respondent: In person
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appellant bank did not produce any document to prove that it initiated steps to recover this amt. from any members including the Respondent.
(2) Wanton negligence is writ large on Appellant bank’s action for which the poor consumer cannot be held liable
Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41) – First Appeal against the Order dt. 30.11.2015 passed by Distt. Forum – Distt. Forum held that the Appellant failed to take steps to recover the amt. which is due to them within a reasonable time - Respondent complainant is entitled to get back her pledged documents from Appellant’s custody - Respondent also exempted from payment of Rs. 11,584/- - Appeal filed – Held: Per State Govt. Order, Appellant Bank waived Rs. 11,584/- towards the interest on non-agricultural loan in 2005 - In 2007, State Govt. ordered that interest rebate given for non-agricultural loan was illegal - Sum of Rs. 1,61,16,376/- has been repaid to the Govt. - Appellant bank started initiative to recover this amt. from members - Respondent also directed to pay Rs. 11,584/- - Appellant bank did not produce any document to prove that it initiated steps to recover this amt. from any member including the Respondent - Respondent informed about the Govt. order after a lapse of 8 years - Wanton negligence is writ large on Appellant bank’s action for which the poor consumer cannot be held liable - Appellant bank now estopped from taking any steps to recover any amt. given to complainant Respondent as interest waiver on non-agricultural loan - Bank also estopped from claiming any lien over pledged documents of the Complainant Respondent.
Held: The District Forum on evaluating the evidence and pleading came to a finding that the appellant/opposite party failed to take steps to recover the amount which is due to them, within a reasonable time and hence the complainant is entitled to get back her pledged documents from the custody of the opposite party. Complainant is also exempted from payment of Rs. 11,584/-. Aggrieved by this order the opposite party has come up in appeal.
We have heard both parties at length and also perused the lower court records. The facts are admitted. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent/complainant is liable to pay back Rs. 11,584/- which is given credit to her non-agricultural loan and whether she is entitled to get back the title deed which is deposited as security in the bank. The definite case put forward by the appellant bank in this regard is that as per the State Govt. order they have waived Rs. 11,584/- towards the interest on non-agricultural loan in the year 2005 and that in 2007 the State Govt. ordered that the interest rebate given for non-agricultural loan was illegal and they were asked to refund the said interest rebate already given to all the loanees including that of the complainant. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,61,16,376/- has been repaid to the Govt. Thereafter the appellant bank started initiative to recover this amount from the members who availed this benefit. Complainant also was directed to pay Rs. 11,584/- which was illegally given credit to her non-agricultural loan. Appellant bank has a lien over the pledged document until the entire dues to the bank are remitted. Perusing the document, it can be seen that Ext. B1 Govt. order directed the bank to repay Rs. 1,61,16,376/- the total amount given as rebate for non-agricultural loan is dated 01.01.2007. However, it is noted that the appellant bank did not produce any document to prove that they have initiated steps to recover this amount from any members including the complainant, who availed this benefit. The members including the complainant were also not informed about the recovery either. If they had to recover this amount of interest subsidy illegally credited to the loanees, they could have taken initiative to recover the same immediately after the Govt. order dated 01.01.2007 or at least within a time frame. The complainant was informed about the Govt. order after a lapse of 8 years and that too when she asked for return of the pledged document during 2015. It is also pertinent to note that on 01.10.2010 they themselves made an entry in the complainant’s Ext. A1 pass book stating that the balance is ‘NIL’. The Secretary of the bank who was examined as OPW1 has admitted the fact that the entry in the pass book on 01.10.2010 was made by the bank authority and it was made fully knowing that an amount of Rs. 11,584/- is still due from the complainant. He has also admitted that the bank was fully aware of the circular dated 01.01.2007 at the time when the entry in the pass book was made. They cannot now turn around and state that the complainant is liable to refund Rs. 11,584/- which is illegally given credit to her non-agricultural loan and that till then they have a lien over the pledged document. Wanton negligence is writ large on their own action for which the poor consumer cannot be held liable.
The above being the position, the appellant bank is now estopped from taking any steps to recover any amount which is alleged to be illegally given to the complainant as interest waiver on her non-agricultural loan. The bank is also estopped from claiming any lien over the pledged documents of the complainant. (Paras 1, 5, 7 & 8)
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ranjit R., Member.—This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order in C.C 237/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad. By the impugned order the District Forum directed them to return the title deeds and connected documents to the complainant with immediate effect. The complainant is exempted from further payment of Rs. 11,584/-. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs and compensation.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 22.11.2005 she availed a loan of Rs. 45,000/- from the opposite party. She closed the said loan liability on 01.10.2010 after paying the full principal amount and interest. But the title deed was not taken back and was retained with the bank as security. This was done as she intended to take another fresh loan. However, later when she approached the bank to get back the title deed during 2015, they refused to hand over the same and insisted for balance payment. Aggrieved by this the complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum.
3. The opposite party filed version contending that the interest waiver of Rs. 11,584/- was given on non-agricultural loan of Rs. 45,000/- taken by the respondent/complainant on 22.11.2005. Later in the year 2007, finding the anomaly in giving interest waiver for non-agricultural loans, the State Govt. ordered the bank to repay the amount given credit to the loanees. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,61,16,376/- was repaid by the bank to the Govt. Thereafter the appellant bank started recovering this amount from the members who availed this benefit in the non-agricultural loan. The complainant/respondent was also directed to repay Rs. 11,584/- which is illegally given credit towards her non-agricultural loan. Till repayment, the appellant bank has a lien over the pledged document. It was informed to the complainant that as and when she repaid the balance amount of Rs. 11,584/- with accrued interest, the bank will give back the documents. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant and opposite party were examined as PW1 and OPW1 respectively and their documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A3 and EXts. B1 to B5 respectively.
5. The District Forum on evaluating the evidence and pleading came to a finding that the appellant/opposite party failed to take steps to recover the amount which is due to them, within a reasonable time and hence the complainant is entitled to get back her pledged documents from the custody of the opposite party. Complainant is also exempted from payment of Rs. 11,584/-. Aggrieved by this order the opposite party has come up in appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterating his contention in the version further contended that the claim of the opposite party is not barred by limitation. The period of limitation is applicable only to a suit, appeal or petition. Appellant/opposite party has not initiated any illegal proceedings to attract the provisions of the Limitation Act. He further contended that due to heavy drought and famine the Govt. of Kerala has given direction not to initiate or recover loan instalments including those who approached the Farmers’ Debt Relief Commission. This is the reason why the bank ceased all loan recovery proceedings during the period of 2007 to 2010. The complainant/respondent is trying to make unnecessary advantage out of a mistake committed by the appellant/opposite party bank. The respondent who was present in person also reiterated her contention in the complaint and contended that she closed the entire loan liability on 01.10.2010 itself and got an entry in her pass book stating that the balance due amount is ‘NIL’. Ext. B1 circular was issued in the year 2007 by the State Govt. The opposite party bank did not inform anything about this to the complainant. Moreover, the bank themselves has stated there is no due pending on 01.10.2010. It is reflected
