SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
Filed on 03.08.2006
The case of the complainant is as follows: - The complainant is a retired Income Tax: official. He, on 10th April 2005 executed an agreement for sale deed with one Mr. Asok Lal to purchase the latter’s santro car for a sale consideration of Rs.1,55,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty five thousand only). On the date of agreement itself, the complainant paid to the seller an amount of Rs.75000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) towards advance of the said sale consideration. When matters stood thus, the 2nd opposite party approached the complainant with a promise to arrange finance to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) from the 1st opposite party. In line with the offer made by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant applied for a loan amount of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) with the 1st opposite party. The same was sanctioned and the EMI was fixed as 4250/-(four thousand two hundred and fifty). As required by the opposite parties, for effecting repayment the complainant handed over cheques to the 1st opposite party. There after, the opposite parties released to the complainant only an amount of Rs.44,547/-(Rupees forty four thousand five hundred and forty seven only) on one occasion and an amount of Rs.17,000/(Rupees seventeen thousand only) on another date taking the total to an amount of Rs.61547 (sixty one thousand five hundred forty seven). Thus, despite the fact that an amount of Rs.1,25,000/(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) was seemingly sanctioned by the opposite party, only an amount of Rs.61,547 (Rupees sixty one thousand five hundred and forty seven only) was released to the complainant. Not withstanding repeated requests, the opposite parties were disinclined to release the balance sanctioned amount to the complainant. Still the opposite parties resorted to proceedings to recover payments as if Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) was released to the complainant. The complainants sustained immeasurable mental agony. Aggrieved by this the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation amongst others.
2. Notice was sent. The opposite parties turned up and filed separate versions almost in similar lines. The opposite parties contended that, when the 2nd opposite party introduced the complainant to the vendor, the seller of the material car had a loan pending with the I st opposite party. At the time of purchasing the said car, as per the arrangement made between the vendor and the opposite party, the complainant had agreed to close the vendor’s loan from the loan amount the complainant proposed to avail from the 1st opposite party. Similarly, the complainant availed a loan amount of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) from the 1st opposite party and as agreed already an amount of Rs.76,154 (Rupees seventy six thousand one hundred and fifty four only) was adjusted towards the loan account of the vendor. An amount of Rs.4,250/- (Rupees four thousand two hundred and fifty only) was credited towards advance EMI of the complainant. The opposite parties further contend that the 2nd opposite party is not a proprietor of the MIS Help Line Financial service, but a mere an employee of the said firm. The complainant is legally obliged to pay of the entire loan amount of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) he availed from the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is only to be dismissed, the opposite parties contends.
3. Complainant’s evidence consists of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and the documents Exbts. Al to A8 were marked. Exbt Al is the copy of the pay order issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party, A2 is the copy of the agreement for sale, A3 is the copy of the Amortization schedule issued by the opposite party to the complainant, A4 is the copy of the lawyer’s notice caused to be sent by the complainant to the opposite parties, A5 is the postal acknowledgement and postal receipts, A6 is the returned postal article, A7 is the lawyers notice issued to the complainant on behalf of the opposite parties. A8 is the postal receipt. On the side of the opposite party document Exbt. B1 was marked. Exbt. B1 is the demand notice issued to the vendor by the 1st opposite party stating the outstanding amount the vendor due to the bank.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions arise for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant availed a loan amount of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) from the opposite party?
(2) If so whether the complainant had made any arrangement with the vendor of the car and agreed to the opposite party to adjust the amount the vendor due to the opposite party from the loan amount the complainant availed?
5. We have carefully perused the entire materials placed on record by parties. Indisputably, the complainant sought a loan amount of Rs.125000/-(Rupee one lakh twenty five thousand only) and the 1st opposite party duly sanctioned the same. The crux of the complainant contention is that despite a loan amount of Rs.125000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only ) was sanctioned by the opposite party, mere an amount of Rs.61547 (sixty one thousand five hundred forty seven) was released to the complainant. The opposite party vehemently contends that through the arrangement entered into between the vendor and the complainant, the complainant agreed to the opposite party to set-off the amount the vendor owed to the opposite party. As such an amount of Rs.76154 (seventy six thousand one hundred fifty four) was adjusted towards the vendor’s loan account. We effected a meticulous survey of the entire evidence put on record by the opposite party. Barring a bare statement no any useful evidence that lent support to their forceful contention is appeared to have been adduced by the opposite party. We regret we are unable to accept the version put forth by the opposite party which is in no way fortified by any material. In this context, we have no other course open, but to accept the case of the complainant which supported by sufficient materials.
6. In view of the discussions made herein before, we direct the opposite parties to redraw the amortization schedule afresh on the basis of the amount of Rs.61,547/- (Rupees sixty one thousand five hundred and forty seven only) and issued to the complainant and the complainant shall within one month of the issuance of the said schedule commence to repay the same. The opposite parties are disentitled to impose any penal interest or any other charge over the period till the said schedule is issued to the complainant. An amount of Rs.1000/-( Rupees one thousand only) is ordered to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant towards cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of October, 2008.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Viswanathan Nair (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the order issued to the complainant by the opposite party
Ext.A2 - Copy of the order issued to the complainant by the opposite party
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Amortization schedule issued by the opposite party to
the complainant
Ext.A4 - Copy of the lawyer’s notice
Ext.A5 - Postal acknowledgement and postal receipts
Ext.A6 - Returned postal article
Ext.A7 - Lawyers notice issued to the complainant
Ext.A8 - Postal Receipt
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Demand notice issued to the vendor by the 1st opposite party
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
