Kerala

Malappuram

OP/03/252

KALATHINGAL KOWLATH,W/O. AMBAZHATHINGAL KAMMADH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ACCOUNTS OFFICER,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

K.T.SIDHIQ

24 Mar 2009

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, PIN-676 505
consumer case(CC) No. OP/03/252

KALATHINGAL KOWLATH,W/O. AMBAZHATHINGAL KAMMADH
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

ACCOUNTS OFFICER,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD
THE SECRETERY,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD CORPORATION
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. AYISHAKUTTY. E 2. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI 3. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,


 

Brief facts:-


 

1. Complainant availed a loan of Rs.55,000/- from opposite parties for construction of house in the landed property owned by her and her husband jointly. That after deducting interest of first and second instalments and service charges only Rs.49,691/- was disbursed to her. The loan was repayable in equal instalments by 14 years (168 months). That complainant remitted Rs.10,400/- in thirteen instalments of Rs.800/- each. Due to financial strengencies she could not pay further amount. That the amount repayable after 168 instalments is Rs.1,35,596/- which is high and excessive. That the interest and penal interest is illegal. That the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by opposite parties for default in payment is illegal. Hence this complaint.

     

2. Opposite party filed version admitting the loan transaction. It is submitted that as per terms and conditions complainant is liable to pay interest @ 15.5% and penal interest @ 2.5%. That complainant had signed the loan application after accepting these terms and conditions and therefore she is bound by them. That complainant did not make regular repayments. She has repaid only Rs.6,400/- in eight instalments. The contention that she repaid Rs.10,400./- is denied as incorrect. That even after repeated demands complainant failed to repay the instalments and hence opposite parties were forced to initiate revenue recovery proceedings. The complaint is only an attempt to escape the liability of repayment. And is only to be dismissed.

     

3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 and A2 marked for her. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts.B1 to B4 marked for opposite parties. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

     

4. Admittedly complainant has repaid only a small portion of the loan availed by her and thereafter has not repaid any amount. She has no case that opposite parties did not issue any notice before initiating revenue recovery proceedings. Her case is that the amount claimed by opposite party as repayment is high and that opposite party should not realise such high rate of interest or penal interest.

     

     

It is not in dispute that she has accepted the terms and conditions of loan at the time of availing the loan. Therefore complainant is bound by such terms. Exts.B1 to B4 are the various noticed issued by opposite parties to complainant requesting her to repay the loan. Ext.B3 is the notice issued to her informing her of the one time settlement. Complainant has not repaid any amount after 22-6-1998. The revenue recovery proceedings were stayed by interim orders passed in IA-205/03 dated, 13-10-2003 by my predecessor. From the facts and evidence placed before us we do not see any merits in the contentions raised by the complainant. The benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be used as a cover to escape liability after availing loans from financial establishments. Complainant has failed to establish any case in her favour. In the result complaint fails. We make no order as to costs.

     

    Dated this 24th day of March, 2009.


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

      MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER


 


 

APPENDIX


 


 

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2

Ext.A1(series) : Photo copy of the receipts (8 Nos.) from second opposite party

to complainant.

Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the demand notice issued by Tahsildar, Ernad to

complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B4

Ext.B1 : True photo stat copy of notice dated, 20-12-2001 by first opposite party

to complainant.

Ext.B2 : True photo stat copy of notice dated, 22-11-2001 by second opposite party

to complainant.

Ext.B3 : True photo stat copy of notice dated, 08-01-2008 by first opposite party

to complainant.

Ext.B4 : True photo stat copy of notice dated, 18-9-2008 by first opposite party

to complainant.


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

      MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER




......................AYISHAKUTTY. E
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
......................MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN