BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC.35 / 2005 WEDNESDAY THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2010. K. Manoharan, S/o. Karunakara Mudaliar, No.22, Kingini Amman Koil Street, Nadupet, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Chennai – 600 035. 2. The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Vellore – 63d2 004. … Opposite parties. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 6.7..2010, in the presence of Thiru. C.G. Sridhar, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. M. Kulothangan, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is one of the partners of the M.K. Retreaders. He obtained a term loan of Rs.55,000/- vide loan No.81 TO 631 Borrower No.9899 – 0214 from the opposite parties’ corporation and the said loan has been sanctioned to the complainant on 25.1.82. Due to some slag ness in the business the complainant was unable to pay the loan amount with in the stipulated period. Hence the opposite parties took action against the complainant before the court and law, besides seized the machineries and sold them in public auction for nearly Rs.25,000/- in the year 1990 and after detecting the expenses the opposite parties have credited a sum of Rs.19,329/- in the interest of the complainant’s account. As per the circular instructions of the 1st opposite party the amount ought to have been credited towards the principal amount only. On the other hand the opposite parties credited the said amount in the interest, which is against the procedure and law. The complainant communicate through several letters and reminder to the opposite parties to take proper and necessary action with a request to credit the amount towards principal amount. Due to hostile attitude as stated supra the complainant suffered financially and also had mental strain. In this regard the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 8.9.04 that he is legally entitle to claim the amount of Rs.19,329/- with interest at 12 % p.a. from the date of public auction of seized machineries which was credited in the interest in complainant’s account. The 2nd opposite party send their reply their counsel denying all the allegations. The complainant is entitled to claim the damages for the aforesaid torture and pain. He prayed for directing the opposites parties to refund the amount of Rs.19,329/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of public auction of seized machineries which was credited in the interest in the complainant’s account and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for physical and mental strain and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards damages and to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite parties are as follows: The opposite party does not admit any of the averments made in the complainant in his complaint save and except those that are specifically admitted herein and as regards the rests puts the complainant to strict proof of them all. It is true that the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.55,000/- on 25.1.82. The further allegation made in para -1 of the complaint that due to some slagness in the business, the complainant was unable to pay the loan amount within the stipulated period and hence the opposite parties took action against the complainant before courts of law besides seized the machineries and sold them in auction for nearly Rs.25,000/- in the year 1990 are false. In fact the complainant was chronic defaulter in repayment of the said loan and hence the opposite party took action against the complainant before the competent court of law and sold the said machineries in public auction and realized a sum of Rs.24,000/-. The alleged amount of Rs.19,329/- said to have been credited to the interest account was remitted to complainant in March 1990 and the same was credited towards the interest due on the said date. The actual amount is Rs.19,329.15p. Thereafter the complainant had availed one time settlement under revised ND & ND Scheme and the opposite parties have also considered the complainant’s application and the complainant have waived a sum of Rs.5,21,294/- due towards interest outstanding and communicated to the complainant in his letter dt. 18.12.03 and the complainant had also paid the balance principal amount and availed the opportunity and settled the balance amount of principal as per the settlement scheme. The complainant has also received back the original documents from the opposite party deposited with them towards the security. The opposite party had also informed the complainant about the request of the complainant to refund the sum of Rs.19,329/-. It was clearly informed the complainant that the sum of Rs.19,329/- remitted by the complainant’s loan account was closed after waiver of the interest outstanding amounting to Rs.5,21,294/- and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any refund of the amount from the opposite parties. Since the aforesaid fact was already intimated to the complainant, the opposite party is not liable to pay any damages for physical and mental strain said to have been caused to the complainant and further more, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Pleased to dismiss the above complaint with the cost of the opposite party and render justice. 3. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 4. Ex.A1 to ExA8 were marked on the side of the complainant and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 5. POINT NO. a): It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant had obtained term loan of Rs.55,000/- from the opposite parties’ corporation on 25.1.82 and the complainant was unable to pay the loan amount within the stipulated period. Hence the opposite parties took action against the complainant before the court of law and besides seized the machineries and sold them in public action and after detecting the expenses, the opposite parties have credited a sum of Rs.19,329/- in the interest of the complainant’s account. 6. The complainant contended that as per the circular instructions of the 1st opposite party the amount ought to have been credited towards the principal amount only. But the opposite parties credited the said amount in the interest, which is against the procedure and law. The complainant communicate through several letters and reminder to the opposite parties to take proper and necessary action with a request to credit the amount towards principal amount. But the opposite parties have not taken any steps. Therefore the complainant is entitled to claim the damages for the aforesaid torture and pain. 7. The opposite parties contended that the complainant was chronic defaulter in repayment of the said loan and hence the opposite party took action against the complainant before the competent court of law and sold the said machineries in public auction and realized a sum of Rs.24,000/-. The alleged amount of Rs.19,329/- said to have been credited to the interest account was remitted to complainant in March 1990 and the same have been credited towards the interest due on the said date. The complainant have availed one time settlement under revised ND & ND Scheme and the opposite parties have also considered the complainant’s application and the complainant have waived a sum of Rs.5,21,294/- due towards interest outstanding and communicated to the complainant in his letter dt. 18.12.03 and the complainant had also paid the balance principal amount. It is further contended that after settled the balance amount of principal as per the settlement scheme. The complainant has also received back the original documents from the opposite party deposited with them towards the security. Hence the opposite parties is not entitled to get any refund of the amount from the opposite parties. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 8. On the perusal of Ex.A1, dt.17.7.03 letter from the 1st opposite party from the complainant. Ex.A2 dt. 22.8.03 reply letter from the complainant. Ex.A4 dt. 18.12.03 letter from the 1st opposite party, Ex.A5 dt. 18.12.03 term loan no due certificate, it is seen that the complainant had availed one time settlement in his loan under revised ND & ND Scheme and the complainant have waived a sum of Rs.5,21,294/- due towards interest outstanding and settled the balance principal amount as per the settlement scheme. The complainant has not denied the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant availed the one time settlement scheme and after settled the balance amount of principal amount as per the settlement scheme and the complainant has also revised back the original documents from the opposite party deposited with them towards security. 9. The contention of the complainant that the machineries of the complainant sold them in public auction for nearly Rs.25,000/- in the year 1990 and after detecting the expenses the opposite parties have credited a sum of Rs.19,329/- in the interest of the complainant’s account which is against the procedure and law. According to the opposite parties the machineries of the complainant sold in public auction and realized a sum of Rs.24,000/-. The alleged amount of Rs..19,329/- was credited to the interest account was remitted to complainant in March 1990. Thereafter the complainant had availed one time settlement under revised ND & ND scheme and after settled the balance amount of principal as per the settlement scheme. The complainant has also received back the original documents from the opposite parties deposited with them towards the security. From the perusal of Ex.A3, dt. 27.11.03, letter from the 1st opposite party to the complainant it is mentioned that the complainant request for credited machinery sale proceeds of Rs.19,329/- made during March 1990 in principal account has not been considered favourably. Hence the complainant are requested to remit the balance amount of Rs.19,329/- towards principal on or before 31.12.03 with 15% simple interest, failing which, the corporation will be constrained to take appropriate action to recover the dues from you. Further the complainant has not filed the alleged circular instructions of the 1st opposite party that the said amount ought to have been credited towards the principal only. Therefore the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties credited the amount in the interest which is against the procedure and law is not acceptable. 10. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A8, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 11. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 12. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 7th day of July 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 17.7.03 - Letter from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A2- 22.8.03 - X-copy of reply letter. Ex.A3- 27.11.03 - Letter from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A4- 18.12.03 - Letter from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A5- 18.12.03 - X-copy of No Due Certificate Ex.A6- 12.7.04 - X-copy of letter from the complainant to the opp party. Ex.A7 – 8.9.04 - Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A8- 24.9.04 - Reply notice. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: .. Nil.. Ex.B1 – 28.3.01 - X-copy of letter of consent given by complainant’s wife Ex.B2- 28.3.01 - X-copy of Doctor’s notes. Ex.B3- 28.3.01 - X-copy of Doctors Report. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. | 
