IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of July, 2009
Filed on 11.02.08
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.303/08
between
Complainants:- Opposite Party:-
1. Sri.T.Saji, 1. Kerala State Backward Class Development
S/o Thankappan, Thakidiyil House, Corporation, Cotton Hill, Thiruvananthapurm,
Ponnadu.P.O., Alappuzha. Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. Smt.Kanakavally, 2. State of Kerala,
W/o V.K.Purushothaman, Rep. by District Collector, Alappuzha.
Vadakemadom House,
Mullackal.P.O., Alappuzha. 3. Dy.Tahasildar (Revenue Recovery),
Ambalappuzha.
3. Sri.P.S.Santhosh Kumar,
S/o Late V.K.Sivanandan, 4. Dy.Tahasildar, (Revenue Recovery),
Vazhakkappally House, Cherthala.
Muhamma.P.O., Alappuzha. (By Adv. Jeenu Abraham)
(By Adv.A.Francis)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case is as follows: - The 1st complainant availed a loan amount of Rs.47500/- (Rupees forty seven thousand five hundred only) from the 1st opposite party in the year 1995. The 2nd and 3rd complainants were the guarantors of the said loan. The entire loan amount was paid off. Due to long passage of time, the receipts of the said payments were not there in the possession of the complainant. Notwithstanding the paying off of the loan amount, the opposite parties made unlawful attempt to initiate revenue recovery proceedings against the complainants. No amount on the part of the complainants is due to the opposite parties. If at all any amount is due as alleged, the same is badly barred by limitation. The service of the opposite parties apparently suffers from deficiency of service. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed versions. The opposite parties' contention is that the complainants defaulted the repayments of the loan amount. The opposite parties are entitled to recover the due amount from the complainant. As such revenue recovery proceedings had to be initiated, the opposite parties contend. There is no deficiency on the part of the service of the opposite party. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties assert.
2. The complainants' evidence consists of the testimony of the 1st complainant himself as PW1. On the side of the opposite parties, the manager of the 1st opposite party was examined as RW1, and the documents B1 to B23 were marked.
3. Taking into the contentions of the parties the questions come up before us for consideration are:-
(l) Whether the complainant paid off the entire loan amount?
(2) Whether the proceedings of the opposite parties are barred by limitation?
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, we meticulously perused the materials placed on record. The crux of the complainants' contentions is that the entire loan amount availed was duly cleared off. Even if it is assumed that, if at all any amount is still due, the same is hopelessly time barred. In order to refute the complainants' contention of clearing off of the debt, the opposite parties brought on record Exbts. B4, B16 and B20. The counsel for the complainants referred to and relied upon various judgments of the Apex Court, and challenged evidentiary value of the same. The complainants' counsel took us through the relevant provisions of S.34 of the Indian Evidence Act and vehemently argued that the Exbts. B4, B16 and B20 do not merit reliance. Admittedly, Exbts B4, B16 and B20 are prepared by RW1, and it appears that the said documents were brought about for the purpose of the instant case. S.34 of the Indian Evidence Act states that the entries in the book of account are relevant only if it is shown that the said book of account was regularly being kept during the course of business. The entries are, however, not by themselves sufficient to charge a person with liability. It is mere a piece of evidence which the court may take into account to determine the disputes. It is clear form a closer perusal of the section that no person can be charged with liability merely on the basis of the entries in the account book, even where such books of account have been kept in the regular course of business There has to be further evidence to prove the accounts which may appear in such books in order that a person may be charged with liability there under. In the instant case, as we have already observed, it has not been shown that the books of account was being kept regularly in the course of business. Moreover, not a scrap of evidence is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties that support or substantiate the correctness of the contents in book of account.
5. Corning down to the contention of limitation, it is indisputable that the requisition to District collector for revenue recovery was in 2008. It is pertinent to note that concededly, the complainant availed the loan amount in 1995. Even according to the opposite parties themselves, the last payment on the part of the complainant was in 2002. Indubitably, as per the provisions of Limitation Act, the period of limitation for proceedings as to Accounts is three years. It goes without saying that the opposite parties commenced proceedings against the complainants, desperately on expiry of 6 years from the date of cause of action, viz. from the date of last payment and as such, the complaint is badly barred by limitation. Viewing from any angle, we are least hesitant to hold that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the facts and findings herein above, the opposite parties are directed to stay away from the recovery proceedings of the alleged due amount as to the aforesaid loan . The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) to the complainants as compensation.
In the result, the complaint stands disposed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2009.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainants:-
PW1 - Saji.T (Witness)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - B.Sherafudeen (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The copy of the letter issued to the opposite party dated, 23.01.2001
Ext. B2 - The copy of the Revenue Recovery Notice dated, 19.01.2004
Ext. B3 - The copy of the Revenue Recovery Notice dated, 30.12.2005
Ext. B4 - The copy of the requisition letter dated, 22.09.2008
Ext. B5,B6 - The Cheques of SBI, Alappuzha dated, 08.08.1996 and 09.09.1996
Ext. B7-B11 - The Memo dated, 13.09.96, 11.09.96, 03.05.96, 01.10.96 and 09.11.96
Respectively (5 nos.)
Ext. B12-B15 - The letters to the opposite party dated, 17.06.1996, 02.01.1998, 25.06.1998
and 12.01.2001 respectively
Ext. B16 - The Statement of Personal Loan Ledger dated, 08.06.2009
Ext. B17-B18 - The copy of the salary recovery letters dated, 25.07.2002 and 24.07.2004
Ext. B19 - The Authorization Letter dated, 08.01.2009
Ext. B20 - The copy of the Statement of Personal Loan Ledger dated, 01.07.2009
Ext. B21 - The copy of the Extract of Personal Loan Ledger of the complainant for the
period of 1995-1996
Ext. B22 - The copy of the Extract of Personal Loan Ledger of the complainant for the
period of 01.04.1996-31.03.1997
Ext. B23 - The copy of the Extract of Personal Loan Ledger of the complainant for the
period of 01.04.1997-31.03.1998
Ext. B24 - The copy of the Extract of Personal Loan Ledger of the complainant for the
period of 01.04.1998-31.03.1999
Ext. B25 - The copy of the Receipts No.52500 dated, 28.09.99, No.62940 dated,
08.03.2001 and No.6582 dated 17.08.2002 respectively (3 nos.)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
