SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for a direction to opp.parties to grant interest on the amount deposited by the complainant to give balance statements to pay compensation etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant joined two chitties run by the opp.party as chitty No.29/98 with chital Nos. 59 and 60. The total sala of the chitty was 10,00,000/-. Under the provisions of the rules of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises, the complainant is entitled to get a loan advance of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the 2 chitties. Though she applied for the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- she was sanctioned a loan of Rs 2,25,000/- out of chitty No.59 and Rs.47,000/- against chitty No.60. Since she is entitled to get Rs.5,00,000/- as loan She applied for the balance loan amount of Rs.2,28,000/-. But the opp.party rejected her claim, even though she has produced necessary valuation statement from the Tahasildar. The chitty was started in June 1998 and the complainant has remitted Rs.1,30,000/- towards the chitty premieum for the period up to July 1999. Thereafter she could not remit the chitty instalments due to financial crisis. The rejection of the valuation certificate prepared by the Tahasildar is illegal and against the bye-laws of the opp.parties. Now the opp.party has initiated recovery proceedings against the complainant and against her properties. The default committed by the complainant is due to the illegalities committed by the opp.parties. The complainant filed a complaint before the 2nd opp.party. Thereafter she filed complaints on various dates explaining that the rejection of valuation certificate issued by the Tahasildar and her loan application is arbitrary. The conduct of the opp.parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. The opp.party 1 and 2 have filed a joint version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The K.S.F.E Punaloor Branch is not located within the jurisdiction of this Forum. This complainant is facing Revenue Recovery Proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore the only option to her is to file revision before the Board of Revenue under Sec. 83 of the Kerala Revenue recovery Act No court shall take cognizance of any suit instituted as provided for in this Act, unless the suit has been instituted within 90 days from the date on which the cause of action arose. On 31.3.2001 R.R. steps were initiated against the complainant and the period of 90 days is over and the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant has applied for a new chitty loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on 19.4.99 and she had offered landed properties measuring 12.14 ares in re. sy.No.135/3-3 of Chadayamangalam village which was accepted by the Regional Manager of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises and the loan was sanctioned on 19.6.99 in chitty No.29/98/59. The loan amount has been paid to her and she also agreed that the loan amount will be remitted punctually. But she has defaulted repayment of the loan amount. Thereafter after serving notice RR proceedings were initiated. The complainant has applied for a loan of Rs.50,000/- against chitty No.29/98/60 offering landed property measuring 11.15 Ares at Pandalam Village. The Regional Manager of KSFE accepted the property for the forced sala value of Rs.94,000/- The company is paying NCL of the applicant and the company is also paying 15% loan when the subscriber subscribe 10% of the total instalment. The complainant did not secure the satisfaction for the repayment of the amount. Hence the amount of Rs.47,000/- has been paid on 3.12.1998. The complainant defaulted repayment and hence RR proceedings were initiated. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs. The 3rd opp.party filed a separate version, also contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is filed to escape from the RR proceedings initiated by the opp.party. The Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act. This complaint is not maintainable as the entire amount has been remitted and the loan were closed. The complainant was the subscriber of chitty Nos.29/98/59 and 29/98/60 . The complainant is a defaulter of the chitty amount. The amount availed have to be remitted by the complainant towards the loan availed against the chitty. The complainant has no right to default repayment of loan. The opp.party is functioning as per the guidelines issued by the Government. The opp.party has not committed any deficiency in service. The RR proceedings were initiated since the complainant defaulted repayment of the loan amount. The market value of the property is not decided on the of basis the report of local Tahasildar but by the Regional Manager of Keralal State Financial Enterprises In the case of chitty it is stated in the variyola that the decision of the Tahasildar is final. In this case the dispute is not in the chitty amount but in the loan amount which the authority competent the out side market value is the Regional Manager. The amount remitted by the complainant can be received after the termination of the chitty within 30 days as per clause 17A of the varyola. Since the chitty was terminated in October 2006 the complainant is entitled to get amount only in November 2006. The surety of the complainant has failed OS 154/09, Kottarakkara Sub Court in which an injunction was granted against the releasing of the chitty amount to the complainant. So the complainant can receive the amount only subject to the decision of the above case. The complaint is filed without any bonafide. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs. This complaint was filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Pathanathitta from where this complaint was transferred to this Forum as per order dated 9.1.2007 of the Kerala Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and accordingly this case was Re numbered before this Forum with the present CC. No.192..07 Opp.party 3 was impleaded as per the order in IA. No.210/2005 dated 23.9.2005 Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. Whether the complaint is maintainable 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for 4. Reliefs and costs For the complainant PW.1and 2 are examined. Ext. P1to P9 are marked For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext.D1 to D4 are marked. Point:1 The case of the complainant is that she was a subscriber to chitty No.29/98/59 and 29/98/60 run by the opp.party that the subscribers of chitty are entitled to get 50% of chitty amount as loan and that the complainant applied for a loan against the chitty amount but she was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,25,000/- against chitty No.29/98/59 and Rs.47,000/- against chitty No.29/98/60 even though she is entitled to get Rs. 5 lakhs as loan. According to the complainant she is entitled to get Rs.2,28,000/- also as per the Rules of Kerala State Financial Enterprises. Ext. D1 is the copy of the loan application filed by the complainant for a loan of Rs.50,000/- and a sum of Rs.47,000/- was sanctioned as loan on 3.12.1998. It is not disputed by the complainant also. Ext. D2 is the loan application filed by the complainant for a loan of Rs.2½ lakhs out of which a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was sanctioned on 19.6.99. The grievance of the complainant is that though she was entitled to get 50% of the chitty amount. In both the chitties that is Rs.5,00,000/- the opp.parties illegally sanctioned only Rs.2,72,000/-. It is to be noted that both the amounts sanctioned as loan was received by the complainant . If the complainant was aggrieved by the order of the opp.party she ought have filed the complaint within 2 years from 19.6.99 which is the date of sanctioning of the loan of Rs.2,25,000/-. The first loan of 47,000/- was sanctioned on 3.12.1998 Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes a limitation period of 2 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action for filing complaints. As argued by the opp.parties this complaint ought to have been filed before 16.8.2001, which is the date after the rejection of her application by the Business Manager on 16.8.99. But the complaint was filed only on 10.1.03. As a matter of fact no petition for condonation of delay is filed nor there is any prayer for condonation of the delay in the complaint. In fact the complainant has not shown the date of accrual of cause of action in para 7 of the complaint which as argued by the opp.party is with a view to suppress the fact of limitation. Since this complaint is filed after 2 years of accrual of the cause of action and in the absence of a petition for condonation of delay. We are of the view that the complaint as brought is barred by limitation. Point found accordingly. Point 2 and 3 The grievance of the complainant is that the opp.parties did not accept the valuation certificate in respect of the properties offered as security issued by the concerned Tahasildar . According to the complainant, the opp.parties are bound to accept the valuation certificate issued by the concerned Tahasildar who is the competent authority in this regard. The learned counsel for the complainant would argue that clause 17 in Ext.P5 variyola says that in case of dispute regarding the surety property, the valuation certificate issued by the Tahasildar concerned has to be accepted and that after incorporating such a condition in Ext.P5 the opp.parties are not justified in rejecting the request of the complainant. The contention of the opp.parties is that clause 17 in Ext.P5 is applicable only for the disputes in chitty and the same is not applicable in the case of disputes of valuation in the case of loan. According to the opp.parties the competent authority in such cases is the Regional Manager concerned. The contention of the opp.parties is that the property offered as security for loan as against chittyNo.29/98/60 was a landed property having no vehicular access. The property situated on the side of paddy field having access only through a bund which will immerse in water during rainy season ceasing to have access to the property. Therefore according to opp.parties the property will not fetch a market value as claimed by the complainant Though the complainant would argue that the Tahasildar concerned has valued the property at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Are no valuation certificate is seen produced before the Forum. It is pertinent to point out that this contention was raised by the opp.party in Ext.P4 letter itself But no evidence, worth believable, was adduced by the complainant to establish that the property would fetch a market value more than what is fixed by the Regional Manager of the opp.parties. The complainant would contend that the bye-law of the Kerala State Financial Corporation says that the valuation certificate from the Tahasildar concerned was to be accepted. However no such bye-law is also produced. When the loan is sanctioned it is duty to sanctioning authority to ensure repayment and in case of default to obtain sufficient security for the realization of the loan amount. In the absence of cogent evidence, we are of the view that the complainant failed to establish that the property would fetch a higher market value and that in the case of loan also the certificate issued by the concerned Tahasildar is the relevant document so far as the valuation of the property is concerned As a matter of fact this complaint was filed after the initiation of Revenue Recovery Proceedings. The contention of the opp.parties is that this complaint is filed only to delay the RR proceedings . As pointed out earlier if the loan was denied by the opp.parties illegally the complainant could have filed this complaint within 2 years of the rejection of the application and no reason is forthcoming for waiting till 2003 to file the complaint. The inordinate and unexplained delay also lent support to the contention of the opp.party that this complaint is filed to escape from the RR proceedings. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has not remitted the chitty dues after 1999 and that she is a gross defaulter. It is well settled that when once the RR proceedings are commence no Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is prayer in the complaint to restrain the RR proceedings for which also the Consumer For a has no jurisdiction In these circumstances it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010. List of documents for the complainant PW.1. – Sheeja Asokhan PW.2. Asokhan List of documents for the complainant P1. – Copy of application P2. – Copy of Application P3. – Reply notice P4. – Copy of Application dated 16.8.99 P5. – Variyola P6. – Copy of letter dt. 26.6.99 P7. Letter dated 16.5.2005 P8. – Chitty notice dt. 22.7.99 P9. Paper Publication List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – Suresh Babu List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Loan application 24.4.98 D2. – Loan application dt.17.4.99 D3. – Notices D4. – Form 21 | 
