KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.566/09 JUDGMENT DATED 6.8.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER 1. The Secretary, Kollam Development Authority. 2. The Secretary -- APPELLANTS Kollam Corporation. (By Adv.B.Vasudevan Nair) Vs. 1. K.Sugathan, Shanthi Sadanam, Decent Junction P.O, Mukhathala, Kollam. 2. The Asst.Collector, -- RESPONDENTS Kollam. ( R1 By Adv.Kavalam B.Sukesan) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC181/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 35,471/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% and also a sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation and costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a housing loan from the first opposite party under MIG scheme. The total amount of loan of Rs.60,000/- only a sum of Rs.29,889/- was provided in 2 installments. The third installment was delayed and hence he could not receive the same. Subsequently, in the RR proceedings initiated by the opposite parties a sum of Rs.80,661/- was paid in complete on 11.12.03 and he applied for the return of the title deeds deposited as security. At the time he was also made to pay another sum of Rs.31,475/-. It is the contention that the above amount is the excess amount collected. It is also contended that the opposite party collected an excess amount of Rs.3976/- as per the RR proceedings. 3. The opposite parties have contented in the version filed that the complainant a sum of Rs.29,889/- in two installments was released to the complainant and the last on 25.8.89. The complainant did not remit the installments as agreed. Notice was issued on 20.5.94. He applied seeking time and undertaking that the entire amount will be remitted before December 1994 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 5.7.94. As per the terms of the agreement for the delayed payment he is bound to remit interest as well as the penal interest till 5.7.94. He has not remitted any such amount. The default was intimated to the surety of the complainant as per registered letter dated 20.6.06. It is thereafter on 25.5.2000 RR steps were initiated. As on 25.5.2000 the amount due was Rs.76628/-. As on 7.1.04 the complainant has remitted in the RR proceedings a sum of Rs.76685/- excluding the collection charges. Subsequently, on the application of the complainant dated 4.1.06 as per One Time Settlement, the penal interest was avoided and balance of Rs.31475/- was remitted on 13.1.06; and he received back the title deeds deposited. The details of the account was given to the complainant on his request. It is stated that no penal interest has been collected. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of PW1, Exts.P1 to P7 and D1 to D5. 5. We find that the Forum has not considered the evidence adduced at all and has held that there is deficiency in service and directed to repay the amount paid as per the OTS scheme with interest at 12% and compensation. 6. We find that as per Ext.P2, the loan sanction proceedings, the complainant is liable to repay the amount in installments with included 12.5% interest and for delayed payments he is liable to pay compound interest and penal interest at the rate of 2.5%. We find that the facts are not in dispute. The amounts due as per the RR proceedings have not been disputed. As per the letter of the Tahsildar it can be seen that the Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated on 25.5.2000 and the complainant has remitted the amounts due as per RR proceedings in installments and the last installment is dated 11.12.03 vide Ext.P4 dated 3.2.04. Ext.B5 is the statement of accounts produced by the opposite parties. We find that in Ext.B5 the details of interest and penal interests due are mentioned. It is dated 20.2.06. It is mentioned therein that at One Time Settlement, the penal interest of Rs.34104/- has been excluded and the balance Rs.31475/- is noted as the amounted due. It is the above amount that has been remitted by the complainant in the One Time Settlement. The complainant could not point out any error in the calculation in Ext.B5. There is no pleading that he was compelled to remit the above amount in the One Time Settlement scheme. In the circumstances, we find that the order of the Forum that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties cannot be upheld. The order of the Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER s/L | 
