KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.948/04 JUDGMENT DATED 24.4.2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Chairman, Kerala State Housing Board, : APPELLANTS Thiruvananthapuram-1. 2. The Secretary, Housing Board, Divisional Office, Kattappana. (Bt Adv.G.Nissar) Vs. Biju.K.V., : RESPONDENT Kalathiparambil House, Pasuppara.P.O., Vagamon, Peerumedu. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite party in OP.105/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants have sought for set aside the order of the Forum in OP.105/04, directing the opposite parties to register the release deed within 30 days and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he applied for the housing loan from the appellants in January, 2001 and Housing Board/appellants sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,25,000/- on 27.3.01 and as directed the complainant executed the registered hypothicaton deed pledging his property and also took an LIC policy for Rs.25000/-. He demolished his building worth Rs.75000/- and prepared plan for constructing a building with an estimate of Rs.2.5 lakhs. He spent 50000/- for constructing the basement. But the loan was not disbursed. Hence he asked for getting the released deed executed with respect to his property. The same was not also not done. 3. It is the contention of the opposite parties/appellants that Housing Board could not release the loan amount for want of funds. According to them release deed could not be executed as the expenses for the same has to be met by the complainant. 4. The evidence adduced consisted the testimony of PW1 and Ext. P1 to P5 and DW1. 5. It is the contention of counsel for the appellant that there is a clause in the application for loan itself that the scheme of giving loans will be subject to the directions of the Housing Board and that the loan scheme is one based on the support given by other financial institutions. We find that the above documents has not been produced by the opposite parties before the Forum. Further we find that even such clause is hardly sufficient to absolve the appellants from liability after making the complainant to execute the documents concerned and also after sanctioning the loan. It is also not established that the complainant refused to meet the expenses for executing the release deed. The Forum has only awarded Rs.5000/-as compensation and has directed the appellants to execute and release deed at the expense of the appellants. We find that the above directions and the compensation awarded are only reasonable. The appellants cannot be heard to say that they have no responsibility in the matter. There is clear deficiency of service. In the circumstance the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER PS
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
