O R D E R<br /> <br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this case for getting a relief from the Forum.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The facts of this case is as follows: The complainant has availed an housing loan of Rs.12,500/- from the opposite parties under ‘Rajeev Gandhi Dasaleksha Parpida Padhadhi’. The 1st opposite party is the Secretary of Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram. The 2nd opposite party is Executive Engineer, Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvalla. The 3rd opposite party is the Accounts Officer of Kerala State Housing Board, Mallappally Branch. The loan was sanctioned on 21.6.1993 on executing mortgage deed in favour of the opposite parties. He had received the loan amount by 3 instalments. The complainant repayed the loan amount by regular monthly instalment to the satisfaction of the opposite parties. On 2.3.01, he submitted an application before the 3rd opposite party for closing the loan account. Even though, he approached the 3rd opposite party several time, the outstanding amount was not intimated due to the absence of the concerned officers.<br /> <br /> 3. On 31.3.01, when the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party, he informed that an amount of Rs.1,616/- is outstanding. Accordingly complainant remitted the said amount and obtained a receipt. In that receipt, 3rd opposite party did not endorsed that the loan is closed inspite of his request. Even though, the whole loan amount was remitted, 3rd opposite party does not delivered the documents which were in the custody of opposite parties. The complainant approached several time for the return of the documents, but the document has not been returned. On 30.11.01 complainant’s sister’s husband remitted Rs.680/- to the 3rd opposite party as per the instructions of the 3rd opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4. Thereafter on 9.12.02, complainant sent a registered notice to the 1st opposite party stating all the above facts. But so far no reply was received. Meanwhile, on 1.8.2003 the third opposite party sent a letter demanding Rs.4,250/- as loan arrears. The arrears stated in the said letter is false and he is not liable to pay the said amount. According to the complainant, non-return of the documents even after remitting the entire dues on 31.3.2001 as per the instruction of third opposite party is deficiency of service and the amount of Rs.680/- collected from the husband of the complainant’s sister by the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs.1,956/- was collected by the opposite parties in excess of the actual dues. As a result of this, the complainant has caused much loss and sufferings. Therefore, the complainant prays for setting aside the demand notice issued by the third opposite party and for the return of the documents with the opposite parties and to return an amount of Rs.1,956/- with 12% interest which is collected in excess by the opposite parties along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and the cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 5. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version raising the following contentions: That the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint itself is defective because of non-compliance of the Housing Board Act by not giving prior notice to the opposite parties and due to non-joinder of necessary parties. This complaint does not come within the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. <br /> <br /> 6. However, they admit that on 15.7.1993, the complainant has availed an amount of Rs.12,500/- as housing loan. The said amount was received by the complainant by three instalments. As per conditions, the complainant has to pay 180 monthly instalments of Rs.170/- each on or before the 10th day of every month. The repayment commences on October 1993. As per agreement, if any default, the opposite party has the right to charge 16% interest for the defaulted amount. A mortgage deed with all the above conditions was also executed in favour of the opposite parties by the complainant. But the complainant never acted as per the stipulations in the mortgage deed and he was always a defaulter in payment. This fact along with its consequences were also informed to him on several occasions. It is false to say that the complainant had submitted an application on 2.3.2001 for closing the loan. On 31.3.2001, the complainant remitted only Rs.1,616/-. At that time, the outstanding dues was Rs.5,520/-. On 30.11.2001 an amount of Rs.680/- was remitted. At that time, the total amount paid by the complainant was only Rs.17,936/-.<br /> <br /> 7. As per calculation, he has not paid the entire dues. He has to pay Rs.20,570/- as on October 2001. But he had paid only Rs.17,930/- upto that date. The opposite parties admitted that they sent a letter on 10.8.2003 demanding the dues of 25 instalments amounting to Rs.4,250/-. The said due was from 10.8.2001 to 10.8.2003. The complainant is bound to pay the said amount. Until and unless the payment of dues, the opposite parties could not return the documents. The opposite parties have not collected any excess amount. They have not caused any loss or injury to the complainant. By non-payment of the loan amount, the opposite parties have suffered much. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the complaint. As per the calculation, the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.7,265/- as on 31.12.2003. The details regarding the principal amount, interest, penal interest etc. were also clearly stated in their version. The penal interest in defaulted amount would be waived, if the complainant remitted the dues on or before 31.3.2004. If fails, the opposite parties have the right to realise the whole defaulted amount by resorting attachment proceedings. They also seek permission for attachment. Therefore, they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 9. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:<br /> (1)Whether this complaint is maintainable before the Forum?<br /> (2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for<br /> in the complaint?<br /> (3)Reliefs and Costs? <br /> <br /> <br /> 10. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him have been marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Exts.A1 is a registered postal receipt dated 9.12.2002 in favour of the Chairman of Kerala State Housing Board. Its postal acknowledgment card is marked as Ext.A2. The cash receipts (24 in number) issued by 3rd opposite party to complainant is marked as Ext.A3 series. Registered notice dated 1.8.2003 issued by third opposite party to the complainant is marked as Ext.A4. Notice issued to complainant dated 19.10.2002 by third opposite party is marked as Ext.A5. Notice dated 21.11.2002 issued by the third opposite party to the complainant is marked as Ext.A6.<br /> <br /> 11. For opposite parties, third opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked. Ext.B1 is the loan application of the complainant dated 15.7.1993. Ext. B2 is the mortgage deed dated 29.7.1993. Ext.B3 is the statement of accounts for loan closing in the name of the complainant. Ext.B4 is the break-up of posting of remittance and Ext.B5 is the summary of dues in the name of the complainant. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.<br /> <br /> 12. Point No.1: It is admitted that complainant had availed a loan from the opposite parties. Therefore, he is a consumer of the opposite parties. Even though, Housing Board Act is in force, Consumer Protection Act is enacted as an additional law and it is not in derogative of any other law time being in force. Therefore, this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. Hence, the first point is answered against the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 13. Point Nos. 2 & 3: On going through the evidence, it is seen that complainant is a defaulter. As per Exts.B1 and B2, complainant has to remit the monthly instalments on or before the 10th day of every month. As per Ext. A3 series and Exts. B3 and B4, complainant has not paid any instalment within the stipulated time. Therefore, he became a defaulter from the first instalment onwards, which compelled the opposite parties to charge penal interest to the complainant’s loan. As a result of this, the liability of the complainant increased. Because of this, opposite parties are not able to close the loan account with the amount remitted by the complainant as per Ext.A3 series. Though the complainant claims, that he had paid the entire loan amount, he had not challenged the corrections of Exts.B3, B4 and B5 which shows that the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,264-75 as on 31.12.2003 as per Ext.B5. In the absence of any evidence to show that the complainant had paid any amounts other than Ext.A3 series, we are constrained to accept Exts.B3 B4 and B5, which were also not challenged. Therefore, the <br /> complainant’s contentions are not sustainable and this complaint lacks merits and is not allowable. <br /> 14. In the result, this O.P. is dismissed. No cost. However, this order does not preclude opposite parties liberty for granting any concession to the complainant’s outstanding liabilities as per law. <br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of July, 2008.<br /> <br /> N. Premkumar,<br /> (Member)<br /> <br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) :<br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) :<br /> Appendix:<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : Antony. K.A.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Postal receipt.<br /> A2 : Acknowledgment Card.<br /> A3(series): Cash receipts (24 in number) issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.<br /> A4 : Register notice No.2 dated 1.8.2003 issued by the third opposite party to the complainant. <br /> A5 : Register Notice No.3 dated 19.10.2002 issued by the third opposite party to the complainant.<br /> A6 : Register Notice No.3 dated 21.11.2002 issued by the third opposite party to the complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:<br /> DW1 : N. Reghunathan Nair.<br /> Exhibits marked on theside of the opposite parties:<br /> B1 : Loan application executed by the complainant.<br /> B2 : Mortgage deed executed by the complainant.<br /> B3 : Statement of Account of loan taken by the complainant from 5.8.1993 to 30.11.2001.<br /> B4 : Detailedbreak-upof remittances made by the complainant and <br /> statement of the balance outstanding.<br /> B5 : Statement of the balance amount outstanding from the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />