Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/517/2012

MANIMALAR FINANCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

A. PALANISAMY - Opp.Party(s)

DEVIKA AND T. MOHAN

28 Sep 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                      TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                               MEMBER                                                                                 

F.A.NO.517/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.27/2007, dated 29.04.2010 on the file of DCDRF, Namakkal)

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015

Manimalar Finance

Rep by its Manager,

40B1, Sendamangalam Road,                          M/s.T.Ranjani Devi

Namakkal.                                                Counsel for Appellant / Opposite party

                                       -vs-

Thiru A.Palanisamy,

S/o.Ammaiyappa Gounder,

8/4, Periya Veppanatham,                                M/s.Vesley Isack

Vasanthapuram,                                        Counsel for Respondent / Complainant

Namakkal 637 002.

          The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.27/2007, dated 29.04.2010. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.08.2015, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The opposite party is the appellant.

2.       The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming for to return the amount collected from the complainant and to return the original documents relating to the mortgage matter of his late father and for costs.

3.       The opposite party filed only written version before the District Forum denying the allegations and the District Forum in the absence of proof affidavit of the appellant after an enquiry allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from 9.6.2003 and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.2000/-.

4.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party filed this appeal contended that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint only on the basis of materials of the complainant without the evidence of appellant and thereby the appeal is to be allowed.

5.       When the appeal is taken up for hearing in view of the representation made by the appellant’s counsel this commission has permitted to file the proof affidavit of the appellant / opposite party before this Commission itself along with documents and accordingly the documents filed with proof affidavit are permitted to be marked as Ex.B1 to B7.

6.       We have heard both sides arguments and carefully perused the materials in this regard.  The complainant’s father obtained mortgage loan for Rs.1,10,000/- by pledging his house property at the village for which the complainant stood as guarantor and also deposited original house property documents of Survey No. 78/78 and subsequently the opposite party’s partner one Palaniyandi purchased the mortgaged property of the complainant’s father through the court auction for Rs.1,10,000/- as per Ex.A1.  When the complainant demanded for return of the documents relates to Survey No.78/78 the opposite party failed to return the same on the ground that the auction purchaser has to pay certain dues and in order to get the documents urgently the complainant settled the loan and entered the receipt duly registered on 9.6.2003.  The District Forum accepted the contentions in view of the receipt under Ex.A2 since the opposite party received Rs.1,10,000/- on 9.6.2003 from the complainant which was not supposed to be collected from the complainant.  While considering the contentions of the appellant on the basis of documents filed before this commission under Ex.B1 to B7 and those documents would reveal Ex.B1 and B2 relates to their company’s registration certificate and partnership deed and Ex.B3 is the Mortgage Deed executed by the complainant’s father and subsequently Ex.B4 and B5 relates to the proceedings regarding Court auction and sale notice and Ex.B6 is the receipt issued to the complainant and his father one Nachimuthu for receiving of Rs.1,10,000/- as loan obtained from the finance and thereby this documents would not helpful in any way to the appellant / opposite party contending that the money was collected towards dues payable by the complainant’s father.  When the complainant contended that the money was received on the ground that the amount yet to be paid towards loan and as he was in need of urgent patta towards property shown as security and on the promise by the opposite party that after getting money from the auction purchaser it would be repaid to the complainant and thereby the District Forum observed its order in para-5 that the auction purchaser is none other than the opposite party’s partner  and the same has been admitted by the opposite party.  The opposite party neither filed proof affidavit to establish his case nor has produced and placed before us any documentary evidence and in the absence of proof affidavit or any documents on the side of the opposite party the District Forum not inclined to accept any of the contentions made by the opposite party in his written version and also observed that the opposite party has no right to retain the amount collected from the complainant which is certainly short coming imperfection on their part leaving to deficiency, with which findings we are in full agreement and that there is no need for any interference withAz the same and also the District Forum only awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- alone as compensation which is nominal and justifiable one along with costs of Rs.2000/- and thereby this appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly

          In the result the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.27/2007, dated 29.04.2010.

          No order as to costs in the appeal. 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                          A.K.ANNAMALAI

    MEMBER                                                       PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT / OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Sl.No	Date	Descriptions
Ex.B1	19.08.1993	Copy of the Registration Certificate of the opposite party
Ex.B2	16.09.1997	Copy of the Partnership Deed of the opposite parties
Ex.B3	24.06.1994	Copy of the Mortgage Deed executed by the complainant in favour of the opposite party

Ex.B4	20.06.2001	Copy of the Sale Notice issued by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal
Ex.B5	17.01.2002	Copy of the Sale confirmation in favour of one Karupannan
Ex.B6	09.06.2003	Copy of the receipt for mortgage loan issued in favour of the complainant
Ex.B7	25.04.2007	Copy of the Namakkal District Crime Branch Communication

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                         A.K.ANNAMALAI

    MEMBER                                                 PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES/ NO

VL/D;/PJM/FINANCE