IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.44/09 (Filed on 31.03.2009) Between: Jacob. K. Eranackal, Eranackal House, Puthussery.P.O., Kallooppara Village, Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist. (By Adv. P.S. Anil kumar) ..... Petitioner. And: 1. M/s. Kerala Financial Corporation, Rep. by the Manager, Branch Pathanamthitta. 2. Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, Branch Manager, Kerala Financial Corporation, College Road, Pathanamthitta. 3. Mrs. Sherin Jacob, Manager – (Legal), Kerala Financial Corporation, College Road, Pathanamthitta. Addl. 4. The Managing Director, Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. P.N. Narendranathan Nair – O.P’s 1,2, 3 & 4) Addl.5. The State of Kerala, Rep. by the Dist. Collector, Pathanamthitta. Addl.6. The Deputy Tahsildar (R.R), Kerala Financial Corporation, Alapuzha. .... Opposite parties. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows: The opposite parties have sanctioned a loan of ` 32 lakhs to the complainant in 2001 for the expansion work of the industry owned by the complainant. From the loan amount the complainant had received ` 10 lakhs as the 1st instalment by D.D. on 25.5.01. At the time of sanctioning the loan the complainant has executed necessary agreements for creating equitable mortgage with 1st opposite party. The complainant has deposited the original partition deed and other relevant revenue documents with the 1st opposite party. Due to the business fall and financial crisis the complainant could not repay the loan instalments. The 1st opposite party issued notices several time for the payment of the instalments and thereafter demanded to pay the entire loan amount he received and otherwise they will initiate R.R. proceedings against him. On receiving the notices the complainant had remitted certain amounts. But he could not remit the entire amount. On 22.3.03 the 1st opposite party issued a letter stating that the corporation has decided to re-schedule the loan amount and hence it is requested to keep the R.R. proceedings in abeyance. While so on 29.8.03 the Deputy Tahsildar (R.R) Alappuzha had issued a notice under Sec.7 and 34 of R.R.Act along with a letter bearing No.KFC/28/03 dated 29.08.03 in which it was requested to make arrangements to pay off the amount on 19.9.03 and also appear at K.F.C., Pathanamthitta. After getting the notice, the complainant remitted a substantial amount and thereby the 1st opposite party issued a notice stating the corporation has decided to withdraw R.R. against the complainant. On 13.11.03 the 1st opposite party issued another notice stating that the corporation has decided to waive ` 12,853 towards penal interest and has withdrawn R.R. proceedings against the complainant. On 17.11.03 the complainant closed the loan account and he approached the 1st opposite party for getting the original partition deed and other relevant revenue records which were deposited by the complainant at the time of availing the loan. But the opposite parties were reluctant to release these documents. After closing the loan amount the opposite parties have no right to keep the original title deed and other documents with them. The opposite parties informed the complainant that he should produce NOC from the Deputy Tahsildar, Alappuzha for releasing the documents. The opposite parties have no right to demand for an NOC from Deputy Tahsildar to the complainant. Moreover even if notices were issued by the revenue authorities as per R.R.Act the Govt. is not entitled to collect collection charges since the complainant paid the loan amount under OTS Scheme. The complainant is highly needed the original title deed but the opposite parties willfully refusing to release the title deed. Further there is no demand or request from any authority about the collection charge or NOC to the opposite party for release the title deed. The complainant paid the loan amount to the KFC directly by OTS Scheme. There is no amount has been collected through R.R. proceedings hence the complainant is not at all liable to pay any collection charge or obtaining NOC from the Deputy Tahsildar. In the circumstances, the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to release the title deed and other documents to the complainant and for paying compensation and other reliefs to the complainant. 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed a common version stating the contentions that only after getting the NOC from District Collector or Deputy Tahsildar they can return the partition deed and other revenue records deposited by the complainant at the time of availing loan to create equitable mortgage. This opposite parties admitted that the complainant had remitted the entire loan amount taken by him. They contended that they understand that the complainant had not remitted the collection charges with the Deputy Tahsildar and that is the reason for not sending the NOC. There is no willful latches committed by these opposite parties and they are not liable to pay any amount as compensation to the complainant. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 4. The 4th opposite party has adopted all the contentions raised by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in the written version filed by them. 5. The 5th and 6th opposite parties have filed a version raising the following contentions. The complainant defaulted in repaying the loan amount taken from 1st opposite party. As per the request of the 1st and 2nd opposite party the 5th Addl. opposite party entrusted the 6th opposite party to proceed against the complainant under the Revenue Recovery Act. Accordingly Notice u/s.7 and 34 of Revenue Recovery Act was issued to the complainant on 29.8.03 calling upon him to remit Rs.11,63,380 with interest and 5% collection charges for initiating proceeding under R.R.Act. There was no request to drop the R.R. proceedings from any authority before issuing notice under R.R. Act against the complainant. The complainant never contacted Deputy Tahsildar (6th opposite party) after receipt of notice under R.R.Act and not informed that the R.R. proceedings was kept in abeyance as per letter dated 22.3.03. Once proceedings initiated under R.R.Act the complainant is liable to pay 5% of the amount remitted after the demand notice as collection charge. The complainant never cared to remit the collection charge and ask for return of title deed and other documents. Without remitting the collection charges NOC was not issued so far. After remitting the collection charges before the Forum the documents were returned to the complainant. This opposite parties prayed for the disbursal of amount deposited before the Forum to them and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Relief and Costs? 7. The evidence in this case consists of the 13 documents produced by the complainant as Ext.A1 to A13 and for the opposite parties 3rd and 4th opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and DW2 and Ext.B1 and B2 marked. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, Ext.A1 to A13 marked. Ext.A1 is the letter-dated 5.2.03 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the letter-dated 18.3.03 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the letter-dated 22.3.03 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A4 is the notice u/s.7 of R.R.Act issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Alleppey. Ext. A5 is the demand prior to attachment of land issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (RR), KFC, Alappuzha to the complainant. Ext.A6 is the letter-dated 29.8.03 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar to the complainant. Ext.A7 is the letter-dated 23.9.03 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A8 is the notice issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A9 is the letter issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A10 is the notice issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A11 is the notice issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A12 is the notice issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A13 is the letter issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. There is no oral evidence from the part of the complainant. 9. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, 3rd and 6th opposite parties were adduced oral evidence as DW1 and DW2 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. Ext.B1 is the letter-dated 4.12.03 issued by the Dist. Collector, Pathanamthitta to 1st opposite party. Ext.B2 is the letter-dated 4.12.03 issued by the District Collector, Pathanamthitta to the Dy. Tahsildar (RR), KFC, Alappuzha. Complainant’s counsel has cross-examined DW1 and DW2. 10. Considering the reliefs sought for in the complaint, the prayer ‘a’ in the complaint was already allowed by the Forum on remittance of ` 52,500 before the Forum as per the Order in I.A.59/09. Hence that prayer becomes infructuous. At the time of hearing, the complainant’s counsel had made an endorsement in the complaint that “the relief No. ‘B’ not pressed and claim for interest is also given up”. In the circumstances, there is no need for considering the prayer Nos.’B’ and ‘D’ in the complaint. 11. At the time of hearing the complainant’s counsel had referred several Judgments of Kerala High Court relating to the collection charge under R.R.Act showing that there is no liability to pay collection or service charges in case defaulter pays the arrears directly to institution pursuant only to a notice under Sec.7 or Sec.34 “Revenue Recovery Rules 1968”. In the light of the High Court rulings the complaint is not liable to pay collection charges to the Govt. The said argument and the dictum in the ruling was not opposed by the other side. Hence the complaint is allowable. But the circumstances stated in the earlier paragraph, no need for an order for the reliefs in the complaint. But the complainant is entitled to get the amount deposited before the Forum as per the Order in I.A.59/09 for releasing the title deed and other revenue documents deposited by him with 1st opposite party at the time of taking the loan from 1st opposite party. 12. In the result, the complainant is allowed to withdraw the amount of ` 52,500 (Rupees Fifty two thousand five hundred only) deposited before the Forum as per the Order in I.A.No.59/09. Complaint disposed accordingly. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 5th day of April, 2011. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Recovery notice dated 5.2.03 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Letter-dated 18.3.03 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A3 : Letter-dated 22.3.03 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A4 : Notice u/s.7 of R.R.Act issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, (RR), KFC, Alleppey to the complainant. A5 : Demand prior to attachment of land issued by the Deputy Tahsildar(RR), KFC, Alappuzha. A6 : Letter-dated 29.8.03 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar(RR), KFC, Alappuzha to the complainant. A7 : Letter-dated 23.9.03 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A8 : Letter dated 21.10.2003 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A9 : Letter dated 12.11.2003 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A10 : Letter dated 13.11.2003 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A11 : Letter dated 03.01.2004 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A12 : Letter dated 04.04.2005 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A13 : Letter dated 27.01.2007 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Sherin Philip. DW2 : Joseph Michael. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Letter-dated 4.12.03 issued by the Dist. Collector, Pathanamthitta to 1st opposite party. B2 : Letter-dated 4.12.03 issued by the District Collector, Pathanamthitta the Dy. Tahsildar (RR), KFC, Alappuzha. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Jacob. K. Eranackal, Eranackal House, Puthussery.P.O., Kallooppara Village, Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist. (2) Manager, M/s. Kerala Financial Corporation, Branch Pathanamthitta. (3) The Managing Director, Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram. (4) The Dist. Collector, Pathanamthitta. (5) The Deputy Tahsildar (R.R), Kerala Financial Corporation, Alappuzha. (6) The Stock File. | 
