IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31st day of August, 2016
Filed on 02.04.2016
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.116/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Geetha. P. 1. Kerala State Housing Co-
Pashnambalath operative Housing Federation
Sasthripuram Kaloor P.O., Ernakulam
Avalookkunnu P.O.
South Aryad, Alappuzha 2. Alappuzha Housing Co-operative
Pin – 688 006 Society Ltd. No. A 111
Sahakarana Nagar, Thathampally
Ward, Thathampally P.O.
Alappuzha – 13
(By Adv. V. Promod)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party in the year 2003 and she repaid the entire loan amount. Even though the loan amount was closed, the title deed of the complainant is not returned by the opposite party. In spite of the repeated requests the opposite party did not returned the original of the title deed. The action of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part and had caused much hardships and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The first opposite party is not granting loan directly to the complainant. It was the 2nd opposite party is authorized to grand loan to the complainant and the 2nd opposite party is also bound to return the loan amount to the first opposite party after deducting the 1% margin amount. The 2nd opposite party committed default in remitting the loan amount. Since the loan amount is not remitted by the 2nd opposite party, the first opposite party detained the document of the complainant.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. While availing the loan from the 2nd opposite party, the complainant was intimated and was aware that all the loan applications received at the opposite party Co-operative Society was to be forwarded to the Kerala State Co-operative Housing Federation with a recommendation from the opposite party and the entire loan amount was allotted from the said Housing Federation. The documents and other records of the loanee is kept at the office of and in the custody of Housing Federation. In fact this opposite party is only an agent of the Housing Federation receiving a mere margin of 1% from the former, for its functioning. This opposite party is governed and controlled by the Housing Federation and any repayment made by the loanee is to be remitted with the Housing Federation. However complaint arose from the loanee that the repayment made by the members were not been regularly remitted to the Housing Federation and consequently Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies after conducting an enquiry dissolved the administrative Committee vide its Order No.7798/10/2 dated 20.3.2012 and placed the opposite party society under the governance of an Administrator. An enquiry u/s 65 of the Co-operative Societies also being conducted. It has been also found that there is a short remittance of a considerable amount, which already has been collected from the members, to the Housing Federation made by the previous Secretary. The Housing Federation is detaining the documents of the members because the repayments made by the members has not been remitted to the Federation. Departmental disciplinary action and criminal proceedings is also being initiated against the previous Secretary and the administrative Committee. Since the complainant had agreed to the deposit of the title deeds with the Housing Federation at the time of the loan agreement itself, she is now stopped from demanding that this opposite party should return it.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit along with two documents and which marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the passbook issued from the 2nd opposite party in favour of the complainant and Ext.A2 is cash receipt dated 8.10.2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
5. The points for consideration are:-
- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
6. Point No.1:- One of the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant being a member of the opposite party society is not all a consumer and the dispute between him and the society is exclusively triable by the Registrar and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. As per the decision cited reported in 2011(1) KLT Page No.573, “Remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act are not in derogation of those provided under other laws and the said Act, supplements and not supplants jurisdiction of Civil Courts or other statutory authorities and (ii) a Co-operative society is a person that could be subjected to an action before C.D.R.F. by raising a consumer dispute.” By the above decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, the objection that the complaint is not maintainable and is barred u/s 100 of the Co-operative Societies Act is not sustainable. Hence the complaint is found maintainable. Apart from that as long as the title deed of the complainant is not released by the opposite parties, the cause of action is continuing and the complaint is not barred by limitation.
7. Point Nos. 2 & 3:- It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed a loan for an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the 2nd opposite party after mortgaging her title deed. Opposite party has no case that the complainant has not remitted the full amount. Moreover Ext.A2 shows that she had remitted full amount and the loan amount is closed. According to the second opposite party, the documents and records of the loanee is kept at the office of the first opposite party and the grievance of the complainant had to be addressed to the Housing Federation. The first opposite party filed version stating that since the 2nd opposite party defaulted in remitting the loan amount to the first opposite party properly a huge amount has to be recovered from the 2nd opposite party. It is pertinent to see that both the first and 2nd opposite parties have no case that complainant defaulted in remitting the loan amount. For the defects occurred in the transaction between the first and 2nd opposite parties, it is very cruel to punish the complainant who has not committed any default. Hence both the opposite parties are bound to return the title deeds as well as to compensate the complainant for the mental agony suffered by her.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to return the title deed of the complainant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2016.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Passbook issued from the 2nd opposite party in favour of the complainant
Ext.A2 - Cash receipt dated 8.10.2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
