DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.106/2009

1. Jafar,

S/o.Pokar,

Komban House,

Thiruvizhamkunnu,

Mannarkkad Taluk,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.M.C.Kuriachan)

2. Fathima,

W/o.Jafar,

Komban House,

Thiruvizhamkunnu,

Mannarkkad Taluk,

Palakkad. - Complainants

(By Adv.M.C.Kuriachan)

Vs

1. Kerala State Housing Board,

Thiruvananthapuram.

Rep by the Chaiman.

2. Kerala State Housing Board,

Divisional Office, Palakkad.

Rep by the Secretary.

3. Kerala State Housing Board,

Branch Office,

Mannarkkad.

Rep by the Assistant Secretary. - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Brief facts of the complaint:-

Complainant applied for a loan with the 3^rd opposite party for house construction. Loan was under the scheme 'Mythri Bhavana Nirmana Project'. Benefit of the scheme is available to the economically backward sections of the society. As per the scheme, out of the total amount of Rs.28,000/-, Rs.12,500/- has to be born by the party and Rs.15,500/-

will be given as government subsidy. The necessary documents pertaining to the property was submitted with the 3^rd opposite party. Amount was released at different stages of the construction. After closing the transaction, all the documents were returned to the complainant. Now the 3^rd opposite party is issuing repeated notices stating dues on the part of the complainant. According to the complainant the act of opposite parties amount to clear deficiency in service and hence complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to issue clearance certificate and pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service.

2. Matter was posted for hearing on admission. Complainant was heard. On going through the facts of the complaint, we are of the view that complainant herein will not come under the definition of consumer, u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant cannot be said to have hired the service of the opposite parties for consideration. The loan provided is in the form of a benefit given to the weaker sections of the society.

3. Hence without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss the complaint.

4. Pronounced in the open court on this the 21^st day of August, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member