KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.269/2013

JUDGMENT DATED:31.05.2014

( Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.47/2013 on the file of CDRF, Kasargodu order dated : 25.06.2012)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. Smt.Kaijamma,

W/o.Late Ibrahim,

Umblathody house,

Meeyapadavu.P.O

Kasargod District

2. Aysha

D/o. Late Ibrahim,                                           APPELLANTS

Umblathody house,

Meeyapadavu.P.O

Kasargod District

3.Davood.

S/o. Late Ibrahim,

Umblathody house,

Meeyapadavu.P.O

Kasargod District

(By Adv.Vinod Kumar.S, TVPM)

Vs.

1. The Manager,

North Malabar Gramin Bank,

Meeyapadavu Branch.P.O                           RESPONDENTS

Meeyapadavu, Via

Manjeshwar, Kasargod District.

2. The Assistant Manager,

Reserve Bank of India,

Rural Planning & Credit Department,

Bakery Junction – P.B.No.6507

Thiruvananthapuram – 33

3.K.P.Chandrasekharan,

Grievance Redressal Officer,

For ADWDRS – 08, North Malabar

Gramin Bank, Pallikunnu.P.O                             RESPONDENTS

Kannur District

4. The General Manager (Convener)

Canara Bank, State Level Bankers

Committees Cell,

Circle Office, Canara Bank Building

P.B.No.159, M.G.Road,

Thiruvananthapuram

(R1 & R3 by Adv.A.Abdul Khalam, Kollam)

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The appellants were the complainants in CC.No.47/2012 in the CDRF, Kasargodu. They were agriculturers who availed agricultural loans from the first opposite party bank. It is alleged in the complaint that due to natural calamities and fall in price of agricultural products, they sustained loss and therefore could not repay the loan. Therefore the bank initiated proceedings to recover the loan from them. It is further alleged that really the bank ought to have waived the loan as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver scheme formulated by the Central Government in 2008. But the bank failed to extend the benefits of the scheme to the complainants. They had also availed loans on the strength of pledging jewels. Later when complainants 2 & 3 approached the bank with principal amount and interest they refused to close the loan and return gold ornaments weighing 30 sovereigns. The complainants sent notice to the first opposite party through their lawyer. In reply they were told that the pledged gold ornaments were sold and the sale proceeds were adjusted in the jewel loan accounts and they were claiming only the balance amount due. According to the complainants the above acts of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service.

          2.      The first opposite party contended before the Consumer Forum that the bank had extended all benefits to the complainants which they were entitled to as per law and as per the scheme referred to in the complaint. Proceedings are initiated only for balance amount legally due from the complainants. The ornaments pledged by complainant no.2 for the loan was sold in public auction after complying with all the formalities. The jewel loan of the second complainant is still pending and she can take back the ornaments on paying the amounts due to the bank under the loan. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          3.      It appears that no oral evidence was recorded by the Consumer Forum. After hearing both sides the Consumer Forum held that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank was established. Relying on a dec