SUSEELA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner availed a housing loan from the 5th respondent-Bank on 31.5.2013. Admittedly, there was some default in repaying the housing loan instalments. Therefore, the Bank took steps to recover the amount. The petitioner approached the Bank for availing the 'One Time Settlement' scheme. As per Ext.P1, the Bank issued an order by which the petitioner is allowed to clear the amount in OTS scheme by paying an amount of Rs.13,89,851/-. Ext.P1 is dated 27.2.2020. According to the petitioner, she was not able to pay the amount because of the financial stringency and also because of the present pandemic situation. Now, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that an amount of Rs.14 lakhs is deposited in the account of her son in the respondent Bank. The son of the petitioner is ready to transfer this amount to the loan account to settle the amount as per Ext.P1. But, the Bank is not accepting the submission and the Bank says that Ext.P1, One Time Settlement scheme is already expired.

(2.) The Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the OTS scheme by which Ext.P1 was issued is already over and now, there is a new 'One Time Settlement' scheme in existence from 1.5.2021 to 31.8.2021. The petitioner can approach the Bank with a representation to avail that OTS facility. To show the bonafides of the petitioner, the Standing Counsel submitted that let the petitioner transfer the amount in the account of her son to the loan account.

(3.) After hearing both sides, I think this writ petition can be disposed, directing the petitioner to approach the Bank. It is true that the OTS facility as per Ext.P1 is already expired. The counsel for the petitioner says that she was not able to avail that facility because of the financial difficulties and the COVID-19 pandemic situation. The Standing Counsel says that there is a new 'OTS' facility available now. The apprehension of the petitioner is that if she accept the new 'OTS' facility, the amount will be huge. These aspects can be considered by the Bank considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. In these type of cases, the Bank should take some lenient view. It is true that it is the liberty of the Bank to decide all these issues. But, I make it clear that if a representation is made by the petitioner for relaxing the interest portion, the Bank will consider the same, in accordance to the law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed with the following prayers: