KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.50/2011

JUDGMENT DATED 26.9.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

Sheeja Asokan,

W/o Asokan, Lekshmi Bhavanam,

Mudiyoorkonam, Pandalam,                              --  APPELLANT

Adoor, Pathanamthitta.

   (By Adv.A.Chandrasekharan Nair)       

                   Vs.

1.      Branch Manager,                                                                            

          Kerala State Financial Enterprises

          KSFE, Punaloor Branch,

          Kollam.                                                       --  RESPONDENTS

2.      The Chairman and Managing Director,

          KSFE Bhadratha, P.B.No.510,

          Museum Road, Thrissur – 680020.

3.      The Manager,

          KSFE Pandalam Branch.

             (R1 & R3 by Adv.Kattakada A.Abdul Khader & Ors.)

                                      JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the complainant in CC.192/07 in the   file of  CDRF, Kollam.  The complaint stands dismissed.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that he had joined in 2 numbers of chitty No.29/08 as chital Nos.59 & 60 with a sala of    Rs.5 lakh each.    As per the brochure published by the opposite parties the subscribers are entitled for  loan of 10% of the sala on after remittal of the first instalments and after remittal of 10% of the sala amount, the subscribers are entitled for 50% of the sala amount as loan.   The chitty is to terminate after 100 instalments ie; in May 2006.  After remitting the 12^th instalment he applied for 50% of the sala as loan as   promised.  He had already availed  the loan of Rs.47000/-  after remitting the first installment.    The opposite party allowed only one  loan of Rs.2.25 lakhs in chitty No.59  on the ground that the security furnished is not sufficient.    Subsequently the opposite party also initiated RR proceedings for recovery of loan amount.  It is the case of the complainant that on account of not providing the loan his business collapsed.

          2. On the other hand, the opposite parties have  filed version   contenting that  the complaint is filed only to delay the revenue recovery initiated.    The complainant did not remit any amount at all towards the loan repayment and defaulted the chitty instalments also.  It is asserted that the property measuring 11.55 ares provided as security was in sufficient as the valuation of the Regional Manager  is that forced the sale value is only Rs.94,000/-.  Further the complaint is barred  by limitation.

          3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, PW2, DW1 and  Exts.P1 to P9 and D1 to D4.

          4. So far the question of limitation is concerned the contention of the opposite parties is that  the period of limitation started from 19.6.99 the date of sanctioning of the loan.  The complaint has been filed only on 10.1.2003 (The case was subsequently transferred from CDRF, Pathanamthitta to CDRF, Kollam and hence the CC is numbered as 192/07)

          5. It is the case of the counsel for the appellant that Ext.P1 notice to the opposite parties is dated 19.9.02 and that in response to the same no correspondence has been received and hence limitation started only from 19.9.02.  Ext.P2 is the another  complaint lodged by the complainant before the Chairman of KSFE.  The same is dated 19.6.99.    From 19.6.99 also the period of 2 years have lapsed.  The contention of the appellant/complainant is based on Ext.P1 which  is dated on 19.9.02.    We are unable to  uphold the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the limitation started only on 19.6.02.   If the contention for the appellant accepted    any extent of the period of limitation can  be  overcome by issuing a notice before filing the complaint.  Hence we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum regarding limitation that the complaint is  had as filed beyond the period of limitation.

          6. All the same, it was admitted that the entire loan amounts were remitted by the complainant in response to the coercive steps taken by the opposite parties.  It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant/complainant that the amount admittedly deposited towards the chitty amounts to Rs.1,30,000/-.  Even after the termination of the chitty, the above amount has not been refunded.  The opposite parties have refused to set off the above amount towards loan repayment also.   In the circumstances, we find that the appellant/complainant is entitled for the eligible amount in this regard ie; Rs.1,30,000/- less the Forman’s commission as the chitty has already been terminated.  The opposite parties/respondents are  also directed to pay interest at 12% per annum on the above amount from the date of the termination of the chitty.  The opposite parties/respondents are directed to refund the above amount to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 18% from 26.9.11, the date of this order.

          The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER