CONSUMER VIGILENCE CENTRE Vs. TVM DIST CO-OP BANK LTD
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-3-12
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 29,2010

Consumer Vigilence Centre Appellant
VERSUS
Tvm Dist Co -Op Bank Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) APPELLANTS were the complainants and respondents were the opposite parties in CC No. 280/2006 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in deducting a sum of Rs. 1,075/ - from the loan amount of Rs. 1,20,000/ - and in the failure of the opposite parties to take the policy of insurance in the name of the lonee Rajappan Nair, the husband of the second complainant Omana. R. The said complaint was filed by the second complainant through the first complainant, the Consumer Vigilance Centre. Thereby the complainants claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - for mental agony suffered by the second complainant with a further prayer to absolve the second complainant from the liability to pay the loan amount outstanding in the name of Rajappan Nair, the husband of the second complainant.
(2.) NOTICE in CC No. 280/2006 was served on the opposite parties 1 and 2 and they filed a joint written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the complainant is not a consumer as far as the opposite parties are concerned and that the complaint is filed without any bonafides. It is further contended that a sum of Rs. 450/ - was deducted towards insurance premium from the loan amount of Rajappan Nair on 29 -09 -2004; but the insurance policy could not be taken because of the direction received from Reserve Bank of India and so the said sum of Rs. 450/ - was credited in the SB Account No. 6989 of Rajappan Nair and it was credited on 31 -03 -2005. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(3.) BEFORE the Forum below, the second complainant Omana. R was examined as PW1 and the General Secretary of the first complainant was examined as PW2. Exts. P1 to P4 documents were also marked on the side of the complainants. On the side of the opposite parties, the Senior Accounts Officer of the opposite party Bank was examined as DW1 and Exts. D1 to D4 documents were also marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below negatived the case of the complainants and thereby the complaint in CC No. 280/2006 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30 -05 -2009 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, the present appeal is preferred by the complainants therein. We heard the authorized representative of the appellants/complainants and the Counsel for the respondents/opposite parties. The authorized representative for the appellants/complainants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal and requested for allowing the complaint in CC No. 280/2006. It was submitted that the respondent/opposite party, Bank deducted the insurance amount and failed to take the policy of insurance covering the risk and the said failure caused financial loss and inconvenience to the second appellant/second complainant. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He much relied on D1 letter dated 17 -01 -2005 issued by Reserve Bank of India to the second opposite party, the General Manager, Thiruvananthapuram District Co -operative Bank and submitted that the opposite parties were not in a position to take the group insurance policy because of the direction issued by Reserve Bank of India by not permitting the bank to take the policy of insurance covering the risk of the lonees under the loan transactions. Thus, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.