IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 14th day of September 2009 CC.No.297/2004 Ayyappan Paingaladiyan, Near Snake Park, P.O.Parassinikkadavu Complainant (Rep. by Adv.M.K.Venugopal) 1. Regional Manger, KSFE, Aradhanakamala Buildings, Kallayi Road, Kozhikode 2. The Branch Manger, KSFE, opposite parties Pappinisseri Branch, P.O.Pappinisseri. (Rep.by Adv.K.Gopalakrishnan) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.15000/- as compensation to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that he had applied for a loan for constructing a house at Pappinissery on 6.6.2000 and has produced 15 documents as required by them. The 2nd opposite party had received Rs.1000/- as processing charge and Rs.10/- as application fee from the complainant. On 20.7.00 the 1st opposite party had issued a notice to the complainant for producing legal heirship certificate of his brother Velayudhan or a declaration from the court, in addition to the 15 documents already produced. But as there was no FIR regarding the missing of Velayudhan, he did not get legal heirship certificate and 1st opposite party stated that a declaration from the court is sufficient so the complainant had filed a suit and the same was decreed infavour of the complainant and had produced a certified copy of the judgment before 1st opposite party. At that time 1st opposite party had stated that they will not grand loans to coolies and advised him to try to get from some where else and returned all the documents to the complaint. No other reason was assigned by opposite party for returning the loan application. This Act of the opposite parties re not justifiable. The complaint had spent huge amount for getting a decree and for other purposes. Because of the denial of the loan amount the complaint had sustained considerable loss and it was due to the wrongful act of the opposite parties and due to their defective service. Hence the complaint. On receiving the notice from the Forum both the opposite parties have entered appearance and filed their version. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version contending that the complaint had been field after a lapse of 4years and the complainant is not a consumer under the act. The complainant has not availed any service for a consideration from the opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable. Rs.1000/- was received as the legal fee for an independent lawyer for scrutinizing the documents. So it is not true to state that the opposite party has received Rs.1000/- as service charge. As per the legal scrutiny the lawyer has given his opinion that the documents offered as security cannot be acceptable without obtaining legal heir ship certificate of Velayudhan, one of the co-owner or a declaration from the court with regard to the death of Velayudhan. Even though the same was intimated to the complainant on 22.7.00, there was no response from the complainant. So the Senior Manger has sent another letter to the complainant on 19.10.00 informing him to take back the document and records since the loan application has to be closed. But the complainant neither approached the senior manager or the opposite party has not taken back the documents. So again on 22.12.01 the Senior Manger, loan unit has sent another letter to the complainant to take back the documents from the office. After that the complainant sent a letter to the Senior Manger requesting 3 months more time for producing the documents as required as per the legal opinion. After that the complainant sent a letter to the Senior Manger dt.9.5.02 and the same was received by the Manger on 1.6.02. But on 1.6.02, the complainant approached the Senior Manger and took back the documents, since the loan application was closed on December 2001After two years, on 25.10.04, the complainant approached the Senior Manger, H.P Unit, Calicut with a request to consider his loan application again and the Manger, advised him to file a fresh application along with the court decree and other documents, since the loan application was closed. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. More over the opposite party has no contact with the complainant and the complainant has communicated with the Senior Manger, Aradhana tourist Home, Kamala Building, HP Unit, Kallayi Road, Calicut 2 and is a necessary party and hence the complaint ;is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complaint; is a consumer? 2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation. 3. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 5. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 and B 2. Issue No.1 The case of the complaint is that even though he had applied for a loan before 2nd opposite party on 6.6.00 along with 15 documents and paid Rs.1000/- as processing charge, the opposite parties had not granted the loan. Ext.A1 is the receipt Rs.10/- issued by 2nd opposite party as application fee, A2 is the receipt of Rs.1000/- issued by2nd opposite party as processing charge on 6.6.00 and A3 is the receipt by 2nd opposite party through which 2nd opposite party had received 15 documents from the complainant. Ext.A1 to A3 proves that the complainant had purchased an application form after giving Rs.10/- and availed service for which he has paid Rs.1000/-. The contention of the opposite parties is that Rs.1000/- was received as legal fee is not correct. It is received as processing fee which is clearly written in ext.A2. So, as per the Consumer protection act, Consumer means any person who buys any goods for consideration or avails any service for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised under any system of deferred payment. So the complainant had purchased application and availed service of opposite parties and hence the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. The other contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is filed after 4years from the date of alleged transaction and hence the complaint is barred by limitation. As per this case, the cause of action for the complaint is arised only after the closing of the loan application. According to the complainant he had purchase the application on 9.3.2000 and submitted the application on 6.6.00 to 2nd opposite party along with 15 documents. But on 22.7.o0 he had received intimation from 1st opposite party that he has to produce, the legal heirship certificate of sri.Velayudhan or a declaration from the court in respect of the said Velayudhan as per Ext.A4. Since the FIR was not lodged with respect to the absconding of the above said Velayhudhan, he has not received the legal heirship certificate. So he had filed a suit before the Munsiff court, Taliparamba for declaration. Meanwhile opposite party had issued B5 and B6 for taking back the documents and to cancel the loan application. But the complainant issued B1 reply to B4 and B5 letter stating that he had applied for declaration before Munsiff court. In ext.B2, the letter issued by the complainant to 1st opposite party for extension of time for producing the declaration, there was an endorsement dt.29.5.02 that he had taken back the documents, 1, 2, and 4 stated in Ext., A3 receipt. The explanation given by the complainant is that he had taken back that documents for producing before the Munsiff court in the declaration suit and they contention can be believed. Moreover there is no endorsement that the loan application was cancelled by the applicant. In Ext.B3 nothing is stated to the effect that the application will be cancelled if the required documents are not produced within a required time. The application filed by the complainant before 1st opposite party for granting the loan as per the application dt.6.6.00 after receiving the declaration from the Munsiff court, there is an endorsement by the complainant on 26.10.04, that FÃm AÊÂ tcJ-I-fp-T-Xn-cn-¨p-In-«n. If the loan application was closed in 2001 itself, the opposite party ought to have return back all the 15 documents received by them soon after the date of closing. No other documents are produced by the opposite party for proving that they had closed the loan application during 2001. So the loan application stands closed only after returning all the documents. So the cause of; action for the complainant is arise only on 26.10.04, the date on which the complainant had received back the documents. The complaint was filed on 16.11.04 i.e., within one month and hence the complaint is filed within time and the complaint is maintainable. Issue Nos. 3 to 5 It is proved beyond doubt that the complainant had applied for loan on 6.6.00 along with 15 documents with process fee and application charge. It is also proved that the complainant was directed to produce either legal heir ship certificate or declaration for granting loan. But complainant took 3 years time for producing the same before the opposite party. But the complainant had informed the opposite party that he had applied for declaration and will take time for court proceedings and requested for extension of the time for producing the same. But the opposite party has not issued any reply to this. The complainant had produced the declaration on 26.10.04 before opposite party and at that time only the opposite party had informed the complainant that the loan application was closed in 2001. If the loan application was closed by 1st opposite party in 2001, they can very well issue a reply to B1 and B2 letter stating these things. More over they had kept the documents also with them till 26.10.04. This shows that there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties for giving correct information to the complainant. It is also true that the complainant had suffered some mental and physical strain. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.3000/-as compensation from the opposite parties and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1 & A2..Receipts dt.9.3.2000 & 6.6.2000 issued by OP A3.Receipt dt.6.6.2000 issued by OP A4.Letter dt.22.7.2000 sent by OP Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Letter dt.28.12.01 sent by complainant B2. Letter dt.29.5.02 sent by complainant Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties DW1.Jophn Dennison /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
