DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 16th day of July 2007.<br /> <br /> Present : Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> Smt.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C.No.54/2006,<br /> <br /> <br /> K.M. Thomas<br /> S/o. Late Mathew<br /> 95 years<br /> Koodathinal House<br /> Thenidukku<br /> Vadakkenchery (P.O) <br /> Palakkad - Complainant<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> 1. Kerala State Housing Board<br /> Thiruvananthaqpuram<br /> Rep. By Managing Director<br /> <br /> 2. The Assistant Secretary<br /> Kerala State Housing Board<br /> Sunshine Complex<br /> T.B. Road<br /> Palakkad<br /> <br /> 3.The Executive Engineer<br /> Kerala State Housing Board<br /> Sunshine Complex<br /> T.B. Road<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By Prof. O. Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> <br /> Case of the complainant is that in January 1995 the complainant has been sanctioned a loan of Rs.1 lakh from the Branch office of the 1st opposite <br /> - 2 -<br /> party. But the complainant was paid only Rs.80,000/- towards the loan amount. When the complainant asked about this, he was told that the balance amount would be paid subsequently. <br /> <br /> Complainant alleges that instead of releasing the balance amount the opposite parties insisted the complainant to repay the loan amount. Thus the complainant was forced to repay the loan amount and he had paid Rs.1,64,800/- accordingly by various payments and ultimately the complainant was called to the office of the 3rd opposite party in March 1999 and told that if the complainant is prepared to pay Rs.45,000/- as one time settlement, the loan account would be closed recording full and final settlement. Believing the words of the opposite parties, complainant paid Rs.45,000/- towards the full and final settlement of the loan on 18.3.1999 and the 3rd opposite party has issued a receipt to that effect. But to the surprise, the 3rd opposite party has issued a communication to the complainant on 10.2.03 demanding Rs.1,39,499/- towards principal and Rs.1,01,187/- towards penal interest. On receipt of this communication complainant approached the 2nd opposite party the complainant showed the documents and on verification the opposite parties were convinced that the complainant's loan account was closed and complainant was made to believe that no further action need be taken in this regard. <br /> <br /> Complainant submits that again on 16.4.2003 a demand notice was issued to the complainant calling upon him to pay Rs.91,958/- towards the loan account. Hence the complainant caused a lawyer notice to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties stating the real facts and demanding the return of the documents and a copy of the ledger account. Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite parties neither furnish a copy of the ledger nor return the documents <br /> - 3 -<br /> to the complainant. Complainant further submits that similar illegal demand notices were issued to the complainant as if there is balance due to the opposite parties in the loan account. Therefore, the complainant again caused a lawyer notice to the 2nd opposite party calling upon him to furnish a copy of the ledger account regarding the loan and to return the original documents within one week from the date of receipt of notice. On 6.12.04 another communication was issued to the complainant calling upon him to the office of the 2nd opposite party with all the receipts evidencing payments. Accordingly, the complainant had been to the office of the 2nd opposite party and showed the entire receipts to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and the complainant demanded a copy of the ledger. But the opposite parties told the complainant that the ledger is missing and requested the complainant to give copies of all those receipts so that the opposite parties could reconcile with their records. Thus the copies were furnished and the complainant was told by the opposite parties that now they are convinced about the case of the complainant and that the documents would be sent to him by registered post. Complainant submits that he was surprised to have a communication from the opposite parties in the 2nd week of December 2004 demanding Rs.83,477/- towards the loan account. Again the complainant has issued a lawyer notice to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties demanding the copy of the ledger account and also the return of the documents. <br /> <br /> In reply to this the opposite parties raising untrue and untenable contentions saying that the word loan closing made mention of in the receipt issued to the complainant on 18.03.99 is only the usual wording is absolutely false and has been made without any basis. <br /> <br /> The complainant submits that the opposite parties are not maintaining <br /> - 4 -<br /> the ledger pertaining to the loan account of the complainant during the course of their business in the relevant period.<br /> <br /> Hence the complainant approached before this Forum praying to direct opposite party to return the original title deeds belonging to the complainant, which have been deposited with the opposite parties in connection with his loan account MIG/82/93 and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant due to the illegal act of the opposite parties, to repay the excess interest levied from the complainant and also to pay the cost of this petition.<br /> <br /> After admitting the complaint Notice was served to the opposite party. <br /> <br /> Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked from the side of complainant. <br /> <br /> The opposite party in his version denies all allegations submitted in the complaint and also states that the complainant had availed a house loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from Kerala State Housing Board, Palakkad Division, by executing a Mortgage Deed Vide No.3419/94 pledging the property owned by the complainant as per the document No.559/87 and the loan amount was disbursed in 3 installments. <br /> <br /> The opposite party submits that they had paid the 1st instalment for an amount of Rs.20,000/- and had paid the cheque for Rs.18,400/- after deducting Rs.1,600/- as service charge.<br /> <br /> <br /> - 5 - <br /> 2nd instalment for an amount of Rs.40,000/- was sanctioned and paid the amount by issuing a cheque for an amount of Rs. 36,047/- after deducting service charge and interest during construction.<br /> <br /> 3rd instalment was sanctioned for an amount of Rs.40,000/- and paid Rs.35,515/- after deducting service charge and interest during construction. The loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed only on the basis of the conditions the complainant agreed as per the Mortgage Deed and application form and also at the time of issuing the last instalment it was informed that the complainant has to remit the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- by 168 instalment @ Rs.1,550/- per month from 10.05.1995 vide letter No. ROMHS/MIG/32/95 dated 29.04.1995 and the instalment should be paid on or before 10th of every month and the remittance made after the due date will attract interest and penal interest for belated days.<br /> <br /> The opposite party states that from the first instalment due date 10.05.95 to 10.01.99, 45 instalments were due amounting to Rs.69,780/-. The complainant remitted Rs.69,800/- as on 06.01.99 which has been adjusted towards 45 installments. The opposite party says that the complainants claim that he had remitted Rs.1,64,800 as on 01.01.99 is false and fabricated for misleading this forum. The outstanding principal balance amount in the loan account is Rs.90,603/-. On 18.03.99 the complainant had remitted Rs.45,000/- in which 3,830/- has been adjusted towards interest and Rs.41,170/- has been adjusted towards principal. So the outstanding as on 31.03.99 was Rs.49,433/-.<br /> <br /> The opposite party further states that the complainant had remited Rs.45,000/- on 18.03.99 and receipt issued “ for closing” the loan account as mentioned in the receipt is only a usual word, and the word “closing the loan <br /> - 6 -<br /> account” does not mention anything else.<br /> <br /> A notice was issued on 16.04.2003 demanding Rs.91,958/- to close the loan account is true . The opposite party submits that the complainant has remitted only Rs.1,14,800/- on 18.03.99 and the balance to be remitted for closing the loan account has been intimated at various times. The documents pledged by the complainant could be released only after remitting entire loan amount due to the Board. Moreover the loan amount is Rs.1,00,000/- noty 80,000/- as claimed by the complainant. Board will release the documents if the complainant remits the loan amount with interest and penal interest as per the Mortgage Deed condition. The interest claimed is also not exorbitant.<br /> <br /> The opposite party states that as and when the complainant requested directly or through Advocate the amount due had been intimated to him. Hence the arguments of the complainant is not true to the fact. Only after remitting the full amount due to the Board in respect of loan No.MIG/32/93, the original document pledged with the Board will be released. Board has issued the notice only as per the condition of the Mortage Deed executed by the complainant with the Board. <br /> <br /> The opposite party further states that the complainant is liable to comply with the condition in the application form and Mortgage Deed. Board demanded only the due amount in respect of the loan received by the complainant and does not cause any mental agony and pain to him through a demand notice which is a legal action empowered the Board as per the Mortgage Deed executed by the complainant. No excess amount has been realized from the complainant. In this circumstances the above version of the <br /> <br /> - 7 -<br /> complainant may kindly be dismissed.<br /> <br /> Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits as well as documents. Exts.A1 to A7 series were marked on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of opposite parties. Evidence closed.<br /> <br /> Heard both the parties.<br /> <br /> The allegation of the complainant is that opposite party had sanctioned housing loan of Rs.1 lakh but disbursed only an amount of Rs.80,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs.1,64,800 to the opposite parties by various payments. Moreover on 18.3.99 he made a lump sum remittance of Rs.45,000/- for one time settlement as intimated by the opposite parties and a receipt stating “loan closing” was also issued to the complainant. Instead of returning the pledged documents the opposite party issued a notice dtd.16.4.03 demanding Rs.91,958/- towards the loan account. Another communication was also issued on 6.12.05 for remitting Rs.83,477/-. Opposite party contented that they had sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant and he had to remit 168 monthly installments @ Rs.1,550/- per month from 10.5.95 on or before 10th of every month. It was also submitted that the opposite parties had disbursed Rs.89,962/- to the complainant after deducting service charge and interest as per the terms and conditions of mortgage deed and application form. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant had remitted only Rs.1,14,800/- as on 18.03.99 and the principal balance of Rs.49,433/- was outstanding in that date. The receipt issued stating closing the loan account was only a usual word as the outstanding principal balance was reduced by the lump sum remittance of Rs.45,000/-. They argued that the same was not all a claim for full and final settlement. The Board would have issued a released <br /> - 8 -<br /> deed if the complainant had been discharged from his liability. Opposite party further states that as per the request of the complainant, they had intimated him regarding the amount to be remitted for closing the loan account on 16.4.03. They had also communicated the complainant the benefit of one time settlement on 6.12.05 by remitting Rs.83,477/- before 31.12.05. The interest claimed was not exorbitant because it was as per the agreed rate in the mortgage deed. It is evident from Exbt.B1 that complainant has availed a housing loan amount of Rs.1 lakh from the opposite parties. As per the Exbt.A8 and A1 the complainant has remitted a sum of Rs.1,14,800/-. The complainant had not produced any evidence to the effect that he had paid Rs.1,64,800/-. It is obvious from the Exbt.A8 that he has remitted only Rs.69,800/- instead of Rs.1,64,800/-. No document was produced by the complainant to prove that a sum of Rs.45,000/- was remitted for full and final settlement as demanded by the opposite parties. According to Exbt.B4 the principal balance is outstanding. In view of the aforesaid exhibits we are not in a position to accept the contention of the complainant that the complainant has remitted Rs.45,000/- as one time settlement for closing the loan.<br /> <br /> In the above circumstances, we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we are inclined to dismiss the complaint.<br /> Complaint dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of July, 2007<br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> - 9 -<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant<br /> Ext A1 - Receipt for payment dated 18.03.99 issued by opposite party<br /> Ext.A2 – Copy of Lawyer Notice with postal receipts and acknowledgements <br /> series<br /> Ext. A3 – Lawyer notice dated 23.11.04 with postal receipt and acknowledge-<br /> series ment card.<br /> Ext. A4 – Demand notice issued by opposite party<br /> Ext. A5 – Lawyer notice issued to opposite parties dated 29.12.05 with postal series receipt and acknowledgment.<br /> Ext. A6 – Reply notice by opposite party<br /> Ext. A7 - Copy of the letters issued by complainant to opposite party<br /> Series <br /> Ext. A8. - Original receipts of payment issued by opposite party to <br /> series complainant<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party<br /> Ext. B1 – Mortgage deed (Certified copy)<br /> Ext. B2 – Voucher of the payment of last installment paid to complainant <br /> dated 29.04.05.<br /> Ext. B3 – Intimation letter issued by opposite party to complainant dated<br /> series 16.04.03 along with acknowledgement.<br /> Ext. B4 – Statement of accounts computerised – (certified copy) upto 30.11.06 <br /> <br /> Costs<br /> <br /> Not allowed.<br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order,<br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />