CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 30th day of December, 2011.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K, Member Date of filing: 11/02/2011
CC / 27 / 2011
Safiya. P.T,
W/o. Aboobacker,
Kottilingal House,
Parli (P.O), Palakkad - Complainant
(BY ADV. M.P. RAVI & M.J. VINCE)
Vs
The Manager,
M/s. Housing Development Finance
Corporation Ltd.,
1st Floor, PKM Complex,
Mission School Junction,
Palakkad -14. - Opposite parties
(BY ADV. JAYACHANDRAN. G)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant:-
Complainant availed a housing loan from opposite party in the year 2005. Inspite of her best efforts she was not able to make correct payment. So she decided to sell the pledged property and entered in to an agreement for sale with one Ravikumar on 20/12/2009 for a sale consideration of Rs. 11,80,000/-, out of which 1 lakh was received in advance. For the purpose of payment of land and building tax for the purpose of sale complainant approached opposite party for a copy of tittle deed certified by opposite party stating that the original document is kept by it. It was not given from Palakkad office, but was given from the Coimbatore regional office with much effort. Further complainant approached opposite party for a statement of account for the purpose of closing loan account. The intention of the complainant was to adjust the same from the purchase money. Opposite party refused to serve the copy and the same was endorsed in the letter submitted by the complainant. Due to the act of opposite party complainant was not able to sell the property. For the same reason she was not able to purchase a property for which a separate agreement was entered in to. According to the complainant, the act of opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part.
Opposite party filed version admitting the loan and contending inter alia that complainant was very irregular in payment of EMI amounts. Further complainant never made any formal request for copy of the tittle deeds. Further opposite party also deny the say of the complainant that he has enclosed the fact of refusal to serve copy of account statement in the application given by the complainant. According to opposite party they have already taken action against the complainant under Securitization Act. Complainant has filed this application in order to avoid the legal proceedings. Hence no deficiency in service on the side of opposite party.
Both parties filed chief affidavit. Ext. A1 to A12 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext. B1 to B5 marked on the side of opposite party. Both parties were cross examined as PW1 and DW1.
Issues for consideration
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, What is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
Issues I & II
Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on record. Availing of loan and default in repayment is admitted. Any how we are not going in to the details of the loan repayment or interest as there is a parellell proceedings going on under the Securitization Act. Our concern is with respect to one issue ie, whether the complainant has approached the opposite party for copy of the tittle deeds and for account statement and whether opposite party has denied it and whether such denial amounts to deficiency in service on their part and If so, whether the complainant has suffered any loss on account of the act of opposite party.
There is no documentary evidence on the part of the complainant to prove that she demanded copy of the tittle deed for the completing registration process. Further we do not think it necessary to produce the copy of the tittle deed for payment of building/land tax. Further Ext. A3 is the document relied by the complainant to show that the account statement was requested by the complainant that and it was specifically refused by opposite party. According to opposite party, the said documents is disputed and also the alleged signature in the document is also disputed. The attendance register which is marked as Ext. B5 shows a different signature of opposite party. Further Ext.B1 (a) which is said to be original of the Ext.A3 clearly reveals the fact that Ext.A3 is a concocted document. Ext. B1 (a) is said to be the true copy of Ext.A3. Mere comparison of the two documents itself reveals the fact that it is a concocted document. Further it is seen that complainant has never requested for a copy of account statement since 2005. It is only in the year 2010 she is alleged to have made such a request.
On going through the entire evidence on record and rival submission of both parties, we are of the view that complainant miserable failed to prove a case against the opposite parties.
In the result complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2011
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 – Copy of Agreement between the complainant and opposite party.
Ext. A2 – Copy of Agreement between the complainant and Mini
Ext. A3 –Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 31/07/2010.
Ext. A4 – Copy of letter sent by the complainant to Ravikumar dated 14/06/2010.
Ext. A5 – Original or lawyer Notice issued by Ravikumar to the complainant dated 12/10/2010.
Ext. A6 - Original of Lawyer Notice (reply) issued by the complainant' Lawyer to Adv. K. Suresh Kumar.
Ext. A7 –Lawyer Notice sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated 01/11/2010.
Ext. A8 – Lawyer Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 25/11/2010.
Ext. A9 – Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 23/02/2011
Ext.A10- Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 12/03/2011.
Ext. A11- (series)- 4 nos. of Cash receipts (original) issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. A12- Attendance Register (copy) of opposite party.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext. B1 – Securitisation Application.
B1 (a) – Copy of letter sent by the complainant to opposite party dated 31/07/2010.
Ext. B2 – Copy of Letter sent by opposite party to complainant dated 23/02/2011.
Ext. B3 – Copy of letter issued by opposite party to complainant dated 12/03/2011.
Ext. B4 – Copy of Statement of Account.
Ext. B5 – Attendance Register of the opposite party for the month of July, 2010.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1- Safiya. P.T
Witnessexamined on the side of the opposite party
DW1 – Sarath Chandran. K
