Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/56/2014

S. KANNAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.I.C. HOUSING FINANCING LTD., THE MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

S. KANNAN

03 Jun 2015

ORDER

 

                          BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                    TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.56/2014

(Against the order in CC.No.64/2013, dated 27.11.2013 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF JUNE 2015

S.Kannan,

S/o.R.Shashdri (Late)

93/6, Muthu Villa,

Gengu Reddy Road Lane,                                 Appellant/ Complainant

Egmore, Chennai-8.                                                Party in person

Old Address :

No.91, Egmore High Road,

Egmore, Chennai-8.

                                           -vs-

1. The Manager,

    M/s.G.I.C.Housing Financing Ltd,

    No.216 & 217 Peters Road,                         M/s.Ramalingam & Associates

    Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.                         Counsel for Respondents \ Opposite parties 1 & 2

2. The Chairman Cum Managing Director,

    M/s.G.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd,

    3^rd Floor, Universal Insurance Building,

    SIR, P.M.Road,

    Fort, Mumbai 400 001.

               The appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.64/2013, dated 27.11.2013.

               This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 12.05.2015, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2.       The complainant availed a loan of Rs.3,90,000/- from the opposite parties on 01.12.2000 and the EMI fixed was at Rs.5422/-.  Due to financial constraint the complainant could not pay some of the installments in due time and paid the same belatedly.  On 10.10.2006 the 1^st opposite party issued notice U/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 for which a reply was sent on 14.3.2007 and in view of the conversation between the parties, the complainant sent a cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- dated 31.3.2010 as one time settlement for entire loan and subsequently a sum of Rs.23,250/- was paid towards balance and even after the settlement the documents were not returned and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service in returning the documents entrusted for availing the loan.

3.       The opposite parties even though received the notices for their appearance before the District Forum as failed to appear they were made set exparte, and the District Forum on the basis of appellant’s materials and after an enquiry dismissed the complaint.

4.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal contending that the District Forum without taking care of failure of the opposite parties appearance before the District Forum who were set exparte instead of passing exparte order by allowing the complaint, dismissed the same erroneously which is to be set aside.

5.       The Appellant / complainant appeared as party in person before this commission and his documents, written submission and oral arguments were taken into  consideration along  with submissions made by the Respondents.  It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant availed housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the opposite parties in 2000 for which since there was default by the complainant in payments the respondents / opposite parties have initiated recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act 2002 during the year 2006 and subsequently once again during the year 2012 as per documents under Ex.A11 and A12 and thereby the complainant contended that even though he had paid the amount by way of one time settlement for Rs.2,50,000/- on 31.3.2010 and subsequently another sum of Rs.23,250/-, there was no documents to prove that the opposite parties agreed to accept the same as one time settlement when actually there was a demand for Rs.6,50,023/- as per ex.A1 and Rs.6,63,746/- as on 31.3.2012 as per document Ex.A11 and the complainant’s contention he was having conversation with the opposite parties for the one time settlement was not at all proved.  Further the complainant as appellant contended since the opposite parties did not honour the District Forum summons for appearance and failed to appear and even after being set exparte, the District Forum ought to have passed an exparte judgment under Order XX Rule (2) under CPC.  This contention cannot be accepted even though the opposite parties failed to appear before the District Forum in the proceedings and were set exparte.  The District Forum cannot be expected to pass exparte order by allowing the complaint because of that reason without going through the merits of this case.  Further under Regulation 26 (1) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 all the provisions of CPC cannot be invoked except for the limited  purpose as  pointed  under the Act and  thereby  the  contentions of the complainant as appellant in this regard cannot  be accepted.  In those  circumstances when the complainant being a defaulter in payment of dues for the housing loan and not proved the entire settlement as pleaded cannot seek the relief for the return of documents which are pledged for availing the loan and thereby the order passed by the District Forum in this regard is fully an acceptable one and no error or irregularity we find in the same and thereby this appeal fails and to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum in CC. No.64/2013, dated 27.11.2013.

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                           A.K.ANNAMALAI

   MEMBER                                                        PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

INDEX; YES/ NO

VL/D/PJM/FINANCE