The petitioner herein is the revision petitioner in R.P.No.28/10 on the files of the Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The above Revision Petition was filed challenging the order passed in ARC.1824/09 on the files of the Special Sale Officer, Kanakkari as Arbitrator. The above ARC was one for realisation of money on account of a loan transaction. The Arbitrator passed an award directing the petitioner to pay an amount of `2,90,000/- with interest @ 13% per annum and 2% penal interest and `1,635/- towards costs and expenses. Feeling aggrieved, though the petitioner had preferred the above Revision Petition, the Tribunal also confirmed the said order, but reduced the rate of interest to 12% per annum. The legality and propriety of this order are under challenge in this Original Petition.
2. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had availed of a loan of `3 lakhs on 13-10-06 and he defaulted to repay the said amount with interest and the balance amount of `2,90,000/- with interest @ 13% per annum and 2% penal interest were due to the respondent. The petitioner did not contest the proceedings and he was set ex parte. After considering the allegations in the plaint Exts.A to D and oral evidence of P.W.1, the Arbitrator passed the award allowing the respondent to realise the plaint amount with 13% interest till the date of suit and with 15% interest thereafter.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that penal interest was calculated in a way that was not permissible under law and the interest was calculated for interest also. Thus, the amount decreed was not actually due to the respondent. It is also contended that notice was not duly served on the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank advanced arguments to justify the findings in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
5. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the petitioner failed to appear before the Arbitrator and the award was passed ex parte. Though the counsel for the petitioner contends that notice was duly served on the petitioner, even before the Tribunal there was no attempt from the part of the petitioner to substantiate the said contention. There is no evidence to accept the contention that notice was not duly served on him. Similarly, though the learned counsel contended that exorbitant amount was awarded including interest for interest, no attempt was made before the Tribunal also to substantiate the said contention by producing documentary evidence. In the above circumstance, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable.
6. In the impugned order, it is seen that the Tribunal had considered the contention that exorbitant amount was awarded as interest for interest. The Tribunal considered the said contention and examined the same in view of the decision laid down by this Court in Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Kerala Co- operative Tribunal (2005 (1) KLT 572) and Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Annie John (2003 (3) KLT 416) and reduced the interest from 15% to 12% per annum. Therefore, I find that there is no substance in the said contention also. Thus, this Revision Petition is devoid of merits.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought for six months time to pay off the decree amount. But, I am not inclined to grant so much time. But, considering the facts and circumstance of the case, particularly as a loanee, who availed a loan from a Co-operative Bank for agricultural purpose, I am inclined to grant 4 months time to pay off the debt and I do so. In the event of failure to pay off the debt within 4 months, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with the execution.
This O.P.(Civil) is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE) okb.