KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL 358/2010
JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2011
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
APPELLANT
Pazhassi Service Co-operative Bank,
Mattannur
Rep. by its Secretary,
C/o V. Suresh,
Advocate, Convent Road,
Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. V. Suresh)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. C.P. Ammalu Amma,
W/o Late, Kelukkutty Nair, Chalil Puthiya Veettil,
Pazhassi Amsom, Elakkuzhi Desom, Uruvachal P.O.
2. District Collector,
Kannur
3. Joint Registrar (General)
Sahakarana Sangam Joint registrar Office, Kannur.
( R1 Rep. by Adv. Sri. Adu Suresh)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the 3rd opposite party / Co-operate bank in C.C. 92/2006 in the file of CDRF, Kannur.
The appellants are under orders to release the title deed and to recalculate the loan amount by treating the loan as closed as on 31.12.2004 as per Ext. A4 and to return the excess amount along with Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.
The case of the complainant is that she was then aged 74 years and that she is in dire straits and her only son died in 2003. According to her, her husband who is no more had availed two loans as loan No. 540 for a sum of Rs. 7,500/- and loan No. 541 for a sum of Rs. 3,800/- for purchasing a pump set and for installation of the pipe line. The loan repayment period is 9 years ending on 7.3.2006. Her husband had remitted a sum of Rs. 5,544/- Her husband died on 20.12.02. She applied to the opposite parties to have interest and penal interest. As the opposite parties were not helpful, she applied to the Chief Minister vide ‘Janasamparka Program’ and as consequence of the same the matter was included in the one time settlement scheme and subsequent interest and penal interest was excluded. Accordingly she approached the opposite party and remitted Rs. 7083/- on 6.1.2005 and Rs. 3,590/- towards loan No. 540(sic.540 & 541). Although she had requested for closing the loan, the opposite parties did not do so. Thereafter the opposite parties directed her to pay Rs. 5,867/- to loan No. 540 and Rs. 3,000/- to loan No. 541. She remitted the above amounts on 31.3.2006 and the full settlement receipt was given. It is her case that the last payment made on 31.3.2006 ie. Rs, 5,867/- and the amount of Rs. 3,000/- altogether Rs. 8,867/- is against the direction issued as per Chief Minister’s Janasambarka Programme. Further the title deed has not been returned inspite of repeated requests. According to her, herself and her husband has altogether remitted a sum of Rs. 20,167/- towards the loan availed for a sum of Rs. 11,300/- She has sought for the return of the excess amount of Rs. 8,867/- as well as the return of the title deed.
The opposite parties/appellants have contented that the husband of the complainant had remitted only Rs. 1,790/- It is admitted that later she has remitted amounts as mentioned in the complaint and the entire loan dues were settled. It is admitted that the complainant had sought for the return of the title deed. According to them the title deed can be returned only on settling the loan amount due to the bank towards the loan of the complainant and her son and also on submission of consent of the rest of the co-owners. It was also submitted that E.P. 984/01 is pending for realization of the loan amount availed by the complainant amounting to Rs. 12,620/- and E.P. 713/2001 for a sum of Rs. 13,750/- towards the loan availed by her son. According to the opposite parties the bank is having authority to retain the title deed as the above mentioned loans have not been settled. It is also mentioned that the bank has no objection in returning the title deed. But the release of deed can not be executed as the loan due payment by the complainant and her son is pending. It is denied that the excess amount has been remitted /collected.
The evidence adduced consisted of testimony of Pw1, Dw1, Exts. A1 to A5, B1 and B2.
We find that it is mentioned in the proof affidavit of Dw1 the manager of the bank at para 10 therein that the loan dues of the loans availed by the complainant and her son have been written off and closed. Hence there is absolutely no justification for retaining the title deed. It is also to be noted that the title deed has been mortgaged only with respect to the loan availed by the husband of the complainant. Hence the bank has no right to retain title deed of the property involved. The same has not been mortgaged towards any other loan.
It can be seen from Ext. A4. dtd. 12.11.2004 issued by the District Collector in consequence of the decision taken in the Chief minister’s ‘ People Contact Program’ that she is eligible for one time settlement and interest and penal interest from 23.11.2004 will be excluded and she can apply before 31.12.2004. It is case of the complainant that she had applied to be included in the one time settlement scheme on 30.12.2004 itself. The same is disputed by the opposite parties. Pw1, has complaint has testified in support of the above statement. She has not been cross examined on the above aspect. Hence we find that the case of the complainant in this regard has to be accepted. Hence we find that the complainant is entitled for the privilege of one time settlement scheme and the opposite parties/appellants are bound to recalculate and refund the excess loan amount as per the undertaking in Ext. A4 letter. In this regard there is no illegality in the order of the forum.
The counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that vide Ext. A5, letter dated 12.4.2005 issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operatives, it is mentioned that subsidy of Rs. 2,500/- has also been granted with respect to the purchase of pump set. It is pointed out that the above amount has not been taken in to account. The appellants are hereby directed to adjust the above amount also in case the complainant is entitled for the same.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of above. The opposite parties/appellants are also directed to return the title deed and execute the release deed. The complainant/respondent will also be entitled for a further sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost with respect to the proceedings before this Commission. The complainant will also be entitled for interest @ 12% from the date of the order of the Forum for the amounts due.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modifications as specified above. The time limit for return of the title deeds and executing the release deed shall be two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the appellant will be liable to pay interest at 15% from 17.3.2011, the date of this order.
The office will forward the L.C.R. to the Forum along with the copy of this order.
JUSTICE .K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
