By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to refund the sum of Rs.53,386/- to the Complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief : The Complainant is the sole proprietor of business concern under the name and style M/s Sahira Furniture and Industries, Kambalakkad.  The Complainant had availed a financial facility from the KSFC Limited for business purpose by offering security and the agreeing to repay the same installments in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated by KSFC. Due to some unforeseen events the Complainant could not make the repayment as per the stipulated schedule. However, the corporation initiated recovery steps against the Complainant and his institution. There upon the Complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court with writ petition No.10012/2011(13) and after considering the writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Complainant to remit the dues in instalments within a specified period. As per the direction of Hon'ble High Court, the Complainant has deposited the amount within the prescribed period. While so, the Opposite Parties who are enforcing the recovery steps on behalf of the corporation levied the sum of Rs.40,886/- as revenue recovery charges and a further sum of Rs.12,500/- as legal charges from the Complainant. The Hon'ble High Court specified certain amount and the Complainant paid that amount. The Opposite Parties made attachment of the property of Complainant on 01.03.2013 and released the attachment on the same day. There is no attachment is made practically by the Opposite parties. The Opposite Parties are not entitled to get revenue recovery charges. And the Opposite parties are liable to refund the above

amounts. Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite parties and Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties stated that the complainant had availed a Term loan of Rs.2,00,000/- working capital loan of Rs.2,13,000/- in the month of February, 2000 for getting up a wood based industry by name M/s. Sahira Furniture for which he has executed Loan Agreement with the Corporation on 24.02.2000 followed by creation of Equitable Mortgage by deposit of Title deeds on 28.02.2000 for securing the loan. As per the terms of the agreement the Term Loan was to be repaid within a period of seven years in 73 monthly installments and working Capital Loan also within a period of seven years in 61 monthly installments together with interest @ 15.50 % per annum with 2% Penal interest for the defaulted amount for the defaulted period. These opposite parties have already informed the real facts in the reply notice sent to his Counsel dated 06-07-2013. The Complainant had persistently committed default in repayment, compelling the Corporation to initiate recovery action against the complainant. On receiving the Notice under Section 29 of SFC Act, dated 16-12-2003, the complainant approach the Honorable High Court of Kerala with WP(C) No.5759/2004 seeking to quash the above said Notice among other relief. The Honorable High Court after consideration in its Judgment dated 23-02-2004 directed the complainant to remit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- within 3 weeks from the date of judgment and also directed to submit a representation within the said period seeking for some installment facilities. On his representation, the Corporation rescheduled the Loan Account, extended the loan period by 3 years and funded the interest portion by opening 2 new accounts and also reduced the interest rate of the Term Loan to the then prevailing rate Viz. Term Loan 12.50% and Working Capital Loan 15.00%. In spite of the above said facilities provided, the complainant failed and neglected to clear the installments and as a result, the arrears in the account further mounted. Instead of settling the loan Accounts he approach Taluk Legal Service Committee seeking benefit under One Time Settlement Scheme. It is not true that the attachment of the immovable property was effected on 01-03-2013. Demand notice under section 7 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act seems to be issued on 16-02-2011 and notice of attachment of immovable property as stipulated under section 36 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was issued on 14-03-2011 by the Deputy Tahasildar (RR), attached to Kerala Financial Corporation, Kozhikode. The Corporation is not liable for the Revenue Recovery Commission collected by Deputy Tahasildar (RR) on behalf of the Government of Kerala. The Advocate's Fee and expenses collected from the Complainant is wholly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

4. In the version of 3^rd Opposite Party as per the RRC No. C2-2011/717/2012 dated 10.01.2011 of District Collector, Wayanad, requisition were received to recover the due amount Rs.6,91 ,949/- and interest from the defaulter Sri. Vysyan Hamza, Prop: Sahira Furniture, Kaniyampatta, Wayanad. Deputy Tahsildar, KFC (RR) issued the demand notice, to the defaulter, to remit the due amount in Form I (under Sec. 7) and Form 10 (under Sec.34) on 18.02.2011 through Village Officer, Kaniyampatta. The defaulter compliant did not remit the due amount fully. Then the pledged land was attached (under Sec.36) in RR action (0.0648 Hectors) on 14.03.2011. After RR proceedings initiated as per the writ petition No.10012/2011 (B), the Hon'ble High Court directed to remit the due amount in installments within a specified period and defaulter remitted the due amount in KFC and closed the account. As per the GO (MS) No.287/2006/RD dated 03.10.2006 Revenue Department, it was ordered that collection charge at the rate of 5% of the arrears to be collected under the provisions of the KRR Act on behalf of any institution modified u/s 71 or collected on behalf of any institution u/s 68 shall be realized from the defaulters. AS per the Government letter No. 69438/H3/04/RD dated 22.08.2005 strict direction has been given to all District Collectors to recover collection charges from the defaulters for all kind of Revenue Recovery which include Government dues. Thus the 5% collection charge Rs.40,836/- and DNF Rs.50.00 ie. Total Rs.40,886/- (Rupees Forty Thousand eight hundred and Eighty six only) collected from the defaulter on 01.03.2013 for Rs.8,16,710/- remitted in Kerala Financial Corporation after the RRC date and withdrawn the RR action. Hence I request that there is no provisions to refund the collection charges and compensation to the defaulter as per the complaint filed. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

5. On verifying the complaint, version, documents the Forum raised the following points for considerations

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the Hon'ble High Court order dated 04.04.2011 in WP(C) 10012/11. in Ext.A1, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Complainant to remit Rs.3,00,000/- on or before 30.04.2011 and a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 31.05.2011. The Opposite Parties produced Exts.B1 and B2 documents before the Forum. Ext.B1 is the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 23.02.2004. In Ext.B1 the Hon'ble High Court directed the complainant to remit Rs.1,00,000/- within 3 weeks from the date of order and to give representation before Opposite Party seeking instalments facility. In Ext.B2, the Hon'ble High Court passed order on 06.03.2012 and the Hon'ble High Court directed the Complainant to pay the balance amount of due in 6 equal monthly installments and the 1^st installments shall be paid on or before 30.03.2012 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 30^th every succeeding month. On going through the High Court orders, the Hon'ble High Court have gave direction in each cases, to the Complainant to clear the dues on conditions. But the Complainant is silent about Exts.B1 and B2 orders. The case of the Complainant is that the complainant paid the entire loan amount as per direction. Apart from High Court cases, the Complainant approached legal services authority also for settlement. If the Complainant paid dues as per Ext.A1 order, then why the Complainant again approached the Hon'ble High Court as per Ext.B2 writ petition. So on perusal, the Forum found that the Complainant is not at all proper in clearing the dues the Opposite Parties. So when the complainant not complied the order of Hon'ble High Court, the Opposite parties have initiated recovery proceedings and revenue recovery is effected ones. Even if cost not awarded as per Exts.B1 and B2 orders, the Complainant not complied the order properly as per strict direction and so the Opposite party is compelled to initiate recovery proceedings against the Complainant. The Opposite Party appointed their counsel for contesting each Hon'ble High Court cases and spent legal expenses for that. Due to the act of Complainant, the Opposite parties had to face so many hardships. The legal charges claimed by the Opposite Parties are proper and correct. But the revenue recovery charges claimed by the Opposite Parties are exorbitant and without any basis. 3^rd Opposite party admitted that the Complainant had remitted the entire loan as per the order in Ext.A1 document. The revenue recovery effected by the Opposite Parties are released on the same day. So where dues are cleared as per Ext.A1 document, claiming 5% collection charge is unreasonable and exorbitant. The Opposite parties are entitled to get legal charges fully. The Forum is of the opinion that claiming 5% of collection charges is unreasonable and half of it is reasonable ie claiming 2.5% as total collection charges is reasonable. So the Opposite Parties can collect Rs.12,500/- as legal charges plus Rs.17,298.72 towards revenue recovery collection charges. So the total amount which the Opposite Party can collect from the Complainant is only Rs.29,798.72. But Opposite Parties collected an amount of Rs.40,886/- towards revenue recovery charge and Rs.12,500/- towards legal charges. So the total comes to Rs.53,386/-. So the Opposite Parties collected an excess amount of Rs.23,587.28 from the Complainant. So the Forum found that collecting 5% as revenue recovery collection charge is unreasonable, exorbitant and it amounted to deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.23,587.28 ( Rupees Twenty Three thousand Five hundred Eighty Seven and Twenty Eight paise) only to the Complainant being the excess revenue recovery charges collected and the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties shall comply the order jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest from the whole sum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18^th day of May 2015.

Date of Filing:29.07.2013.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Hamza Business.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Umesh Babu. Manager, Legal, KFC, Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Order. dt:04.04.2011.

A2. Copy of Acknowledgement for Receipt of Money. dt:01.03.2013.

A3. Letter. dt:01.03.2013.

A4. Copy of Letter. dt:29.06.2013.

A5. Postal Receipt.

A6(a) Acknowledgement

A6(b) Acknowledgement

A6(c) Acknowledgement

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

B1. Copy of Judgment dt:23.02.2004.

B2. Copy of Judgment dt:06.03.2012.