IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15543 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.P. RAJAMONY, ASSISTANT MANAGER, UCO BANK, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT TC.55/2090, KALPAKA GARDEN, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UCO BANK, HEAD OFFICE, HRD DEPARTMENT, DD BLOCK,SECTOR-1, SALT LAKE, KOLKATTA-700064, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UCO BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KOLKATTA-64. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, UCO BANK,TRIVANDRUM. 4. ZONAL MANAGER, UCO BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. BY SC SRI.GEORGE K. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.15543 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a housing loan from the first respondent, which is a Rural Housing Co-operative Society. According to the petitioner, she had remitted different amounts which would be more than double of the principal amount. The first respondent society would point out that some time in 2006, on account of the then existing One Time Settlement Scheme, Ext.P2 was issued to the petitioner extending the facility, however, that the petitioner did not avail it. It is accordingly pointed out that as of now, further amounts are due. The short issue is as to what would be the amount that the petitioner has to pay to the first respondent to finally close down the loan. If One Time Settlement Scheme was available as contained in Ext.P2 and if the petitioner had not availed the benefit of that scheme, in the normal circumstance, the benefit of that scheme WPC.15543/08 Page numbers would be lost. But if the petitioner's case could be treated as a special one, having regard to her being a senior citizen and because she has repaid a good portion of the amounts which were credited towards the interest account, it would be appropriate to consider whether the amount due under the One Time Settlement Scheme as per Ext.P2 could be determined and a running rate of interest could be imposed either on the lending rate as agreed to between the parties or on any other reasonable rate. This is a matter on which the society can take a decision in its wisdom so that the petitioner's transaction could be finally closed. This can also be done with the junction of the second respondent to give a quietus to the issue. Having regard to what is aforesaid, it is directed that the petitioner and the first respondent shall appear before the second respondent, produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition and the second respondent shall, thereupon, work out a reconciliation between the petitioner and the first respondent in relation to the amounts that the petitioner WPC.15543/08 Page numbers may have to pay. This shall be done within an outer limit of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the light of what is stated above, the petitioner shall remit such amount and close the transaction. To aid the aforesaid process, it is directed that all recovery proceedings shall stand deferred until a decision is taken by the second respondent as directed above. The writ petition ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.