SPECIAL OFFICER, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP. & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. Vs. A.G. KALIA PERUMAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.03.2011, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 471/2008, "Special Officer, Primary Agricultural Co-op and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bank) Vs. A.G. Kalia Perumal and Ors.", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 23.01.2008, passed by the District Forum Tiruvarur in consumer complaint No. 22/2006, filed by the complainant/respondent No. 1 A.G. Kalia Perumal, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 1 A.G. Kalia Perumal stated in his consumer complaint No. 22/2006 filed before the District Forum that he obtained a loan of Rs. 1,63,000.00 from the petitioner Bank in May 1994 for purchase of a tractor. The said loan was to be discharged within 9 years by making payment of Rs. 34,150.00 per year with interest @12% p.a. According to the complainant, he discharged the entire debt within a period of 6 years by selling the tractor on 11.01.2001. However, on verification of the account, it came to his notice that the petitioner Bank had received a sum of Rs. 83,708.00 in excess from the complainant. The complainant was entitled to certain eligible benefits as per schemes announced by the Government from time to time, which were denied to him. The matter was also brought to the notice of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies who asked the Bank vide letter dated 14.10.2003 to consider refund of excess amount of Rs. 70,282.00 to the complainant. On the failure of the Bank to refund the amount, the consumer complaint in question, was filed seeking refund of a sum of Rs. 83,708.00 with interest and to return the documents obtained from the complainant by the Bank and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 towards harassment and Rs. 50,000.00 towards loss suffered etc.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank by filing a written reply before the District Forum in which they stated that the complaint was barred by limitation, as the same should have been filed within two years of the cause of action. The petitioner Bank stated that the cause of action would have accrued on 14.10.2003, when the Dy. Registrar sent letter to them for considering the plea of refund, but the complaint was filed only on 14.03.2006 and hence, was beyond limitation. The Bank further stated that on receipt of letter dated 14.10.2003 from the Deputy Registrar, inquiries were conducted by Land Valuation Officer, who submitted a report stating that the complainant was not eligible for One Time Settlement (OTS) under the schemes announced by the Government. The Bank was, therefore, not liable to refund any amount to the complainant. It was stated that the benefit of Government schemes could have been given to those persons only who had committed default for more than 13 months prior to 31.03.2001. Hence, the complainant was not eligible for OTS.