IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 25^th  day of March   2010

C.C.No.92/2006

C.P.Ammalu Amma

W/o.Late Kelukutty Nair,

Chalil Puthiya Veetil,

Pazhassi Amsom,

Elakkuzhi Desom,                                                        Complainant

P.O.Uruvachal

1. District Collector, Kannur

2. Joint Registrar (General),

    Sahakarana Sangam Joint Registrar Office,

    Kannur.

3. Secretary,

    Pazhassi Service Co.Op.Bank,                                 Opposite parties

    P.O.Mattannur.

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This complaint is filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.8867/- and to return the original deed to the complainant with compensation and cost.

            The complainant alleged that her husband Kelukutty Nair was a member of the 3^rd opposite party having No.2140 and had availed a loan for an amount of Rs.11,300/- for installing pump set and pipe line by mortgaging the property comprised in RS.15 in Pazhassi Amsom and Elakuzhi Desom with a condition to repay the loan within 9 years ie. on 7.3.06. The above said Kelukutti Nair had repaid Rs.5544/- towards the loan amount and he died on 20.12.02. The complainant has no source of income, she was unable to repay the loan amount and she approached the 3^rd opposite party to close the loan dues by waving the interest and penal interest. Since the opposite parties did nothing the complainant represented the mater before the Chief Minister’s “Janasamparka Program” and her complaint was considered having No.3792 dt.30.12.04. The complainant was  informed by the 1^st opposite party through a letter dt.25.4.05 that she is eligible to get moratorium  in one time settlement and as per this an application was submitted to 3^rd opposite party and as per the direction  an amount of Rs.7083/- in loan No.540 and Rs.3590/- in loan No.541 was deposited. Even though the  3^rd opposite party has received the amount and given receipt on 30.12.04 they were not ready to give back the original deed by closing the loan amount. But again on 12.4.05 the opposite party intimated the complainant to pay the entire loan balance. So on 31.3.06, the complainant paid Rs. 5867/- and Rs.3000/- towards loan Nos. 540 and 541 respectively and both the loans were closed. But the deed was not returned to the complainant. The opposite arty had collected a sum of Rs.8867/- on 31.3.06 as against the settlement made in chief ministers program. So there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.8867/- along with the original deeds. Hence this complaint.

            In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite parties appeared and filed their version.

            Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended in their version that they are unnecessary parties and no relief is sought against them. The complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence the complaint against them is not maintainable before the Forum. More over the opposite party has no direct knowledge about the true facts of the case. But on enquiry it is revealed that the complainant and her family are having landed property and income. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost of opposite parties 1 and 2.

            3^rd opposite party also filed version admitting that the one Kelukutty Nair, the husband of the complainant had availed loan by pledging his property and also admits that he was died on 20.12.02. But they denied the contention that he has repaid Rs.5544/- towards the loan amount. He had repaid only Rs.1790/-. The 3^rd opposite party admits that the complainant had paid entire loan due in the name of Kelukutty Nair to the bank. The opposite party further admits that the complainant demanded the title deeds from them, but the bank informed her that she has to pay the entire dues in the name of her and her son and to produce consent letter also from the legal heirs of the above said Kelukutty Nair. The complainant and her son Balakrishnan had availed loans and E.P.984/01 and 713/01 are pending as execution proceedings against them. The complainant owes Rs.12621/- and her son owes Rs.13, 715/- to the back. So the bank can take proceedings to realize the above said amount form the property and hence the bank is not in a position to return the deed to the complainant. So they are ready to return back the document but were not ready to give release deed. If she needs release deed the complainant and her son have to close their loans. It is not correct to say that the 3^rd opposite party have recovered Rs.8676/- from the complainant. The loan was closed by showing lawful reduction to the complainant. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of 3^rd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Dw1 and Exts.A1 to A5 and B1, B2 (a) to (d).

Issue Nos.1 to 3

            The complainant’s case is that her husband had availed two agricultural loan for an amount of Rs.11, 300/- and repaid the entire loan amount along with an excess amount of Rs.8867/- and the opposite parties were not returned the original document. So the opposite parties re liable to return the original document along with the excess amount of Rs.8867/- paid by the complainant. In order to prove her case she has produced Et.a1 copy of the application filed before the Chief Minister on 20.10.04. A2 is the copy of the letter issued by /Deputy Collector to 2^nd opposite party. A3 is the receipts issued by 3^rd opposite party while closing the loan A4 is another letter issued by Deputy Collector and A5 is the letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant. Opposite party also produced Exts.B1 authorization letter, B2 (b) to (d) are the photo copy of the loan registers. The opposite party admits the loan and that the husband was a member and died on 20.12.02. But the complainant contended that he had already repaid Rs.5544/- towards loan dues during his life time. But the opposite party denies by saying that he had paid only Rs.1189/- including interest towards the loan having No.540 and 60/- including interest towards loan bearing No.541 and produces the extract of loan ledger. This disproves the complainant’s contention that   the deceased Kelukutty Nair had already paid Rs.5544/- since the complainant had not produced any receipt in favour of his contention. So the above contention of the complainant cannot be taken into consideration. The complainant further contended that she was informed by1st opposite party that she is eligible to get moratorium in one time settlement and hence she was submitted an application on 30.12.04 to 3fd opposite arty and as per direction an amount of Rs.7083/- in loan No.540 and Rs.3, 590/- in loan No.541 was deposited and the opposite party has not closed the loan and kept the original deed in their custody. The ext.A4, the letter issued by 1^st opposite party shows that she was entitled to get deducted the interest and penal interest by including the one time settlement and will get moratorium period. But according to 3^rd opposite party they have no information about the inclusion of the loans for clearance in ‘Jana Sambarka program’. Moreover as per Ext.A4, for that purpose the complainant should have applied to the bank before 31.12.04. But the complainant never approached for the same. But the complainant contended that she has applied to the bank on 30.12.04 and as per the direction of 3^rd opposite arty she had paid Rs.7083 in loan No.540 and Rs.3590/- in loan No.541 and Ext.A3 bills are given by 3^rd opposite party on 6.1.05. The opposite party further contended that they have waved interest and adjusted an amount of Rs.965/- in the loan as per debt relief scheme. But  the perusal of Ext.B2(a) and B2(d) i.e. the statement  of account by the 3^rd opposite party with respect to the loanNo.540 and 541, it is not seen adjusted and hence it is seen that the above averment are not correct. As admitted by opposite party the complainant has paid Rs.1189/- on 14.1.98, Rs.7062/- on 6.1.05, Rs.965/- on 2.2.06 and Rs.5867 on 31.3.06 towards the account No.54-0 and Rs.601/- on 14.1.98, Rs.3569/- on 6.1.05, Rs.475/- on 2.2.06 and Rs.3000/- on 31.3.06. As per this the detailed statement is as follows:

            The opposite party disbursed the loan amount on 8.3.97 with 12% interest. Accordingly the statement is

            As per Ext.B2 (a) complainant had paid Rs.15083/-towadsthe loanNo.540- and as per Ext.B2 (d) she has paid Rs.7645/- towards the loan No.541. By verifying the above calculation with that of B2 (a) and (d) it is seen that the 3^rd opposite party has not waived or adjusted under debt relief scheme even a single paisa and instead of it the 3^rd opposite party had received Rs.25/- than the actual amount to be paid by the complainant towards the loan amount. Moreover the Ext.A3 (a) and (b) were dt.6.1.05. As per Ext.A4, the complainant was directed to give application for one time settlement on or before 31.12.04 and the complainant submitted that she had already applied on 30.12.04 for the one time settlement. From Ext.A3 (a) and (b) it can be inferred that the complaint had filed the application as per Ext.A4. So the complainant is entitled to the relief as per the one time settlement. So it is seen that there is deficiency on the part of the 3^rd opposite party in closing the loan as per one time settlement as per Ext.A4.

            Yet another contention is that the 3^rd opposite party has not released the title deed. But according to 3^rd opposite party, the complaint and her son had availed another two loans and these loans are due and hence they are not releasing the deed. But later 3^rd opposite arty admitted that the above said loans were written off by3rd opposite party as per the Debt relief Scheme of the state Government and they are ready to release the deed on production of legal heir ship certificate of the above deceased Kelukutty Nair. So we are of the opinion that 3^rd opposite party has to recalculate the loan amount by closing the loan as per One time settlement as mentioned in Ext.A4 as on 30.12.04 and to return back the excess amount received from the complainant along with Rs.1000/- as cost and Rs.1000/- as compensation to the compliant and further directed to release the deed to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are exonerated from liabilities since there is no claim against them.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 3^rd opposite party to release the title deed and also directed to recalculate the loan amount by closing the loan as on 31.12.04 as per Ext.A4 and return back the excess amount to the complainant along with Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings within one month from, the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order against 3^rd opposite party as per the provisions of consumer protection.

                           Sd/-                              Sd/-                               Sd/-

                        President                      Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the letter submitted before the Chief Minister, Keralaldt.20.10.04

2. Letter No.A.2853/04/A7 dt.30.12.04 sent by Dist. Collector, Kannur

A3.Receipts issued by OP

A4.Letter No.C.M.2494/04 dt.12.11.04 issued by 1^st OP

A5.Letter No.P.2014/05 dt.12.4.05 issued by 2^nd OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.Authorisatin letter dt.3.10.09 issued by 3rd OP

B2.Copy of the loan ledger

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1.Karunakaran.K.C

                                                            /forwarded by order/

                                                            Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur