KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL NO.895/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 21.5.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP.95/04 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, : APPELLANTS Thiruvananthpauram-1. 2. The Manager, Kerala State Housing Board, Kattappana Division, Kapttappana.P.O. (By Adv.Marackal A.Gopalakrishnan Nair) Vs. Mohanan, S/o Peethambaran, : RESPONDENT Nooramparayil House, Kuthumkal.P.O.,Kuthumkal, Udumbanchola village. (By Adv.S.Krishnakumar) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties /Housing Board in OP 95/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.28500 as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that he had applied for a housing loan from the opposite party under a special scheme, Mythri Housing Scheme intended for people living below the poverty line sponsored by the opposite party. The complainant remitted an amount of Rs.5000/- on 30.3.2000 towards his contribution under the scheme. As per directions of the opposite party and as per the approved plan he completed the construction of the building. But the amount promised ie Rs.28500/- was not given inspite of repeated demands. The completion certificate was produced on 4.7.03 signed by the village Officer. He got the engineer of the opposite party brought to the site in a taxi hired. He spent considerable amount for the engineer and office staff of the opposite party. Subsequently on 7.11.03 when the complainant again went to the office of the opposite party the engineer informed him that the application of the complainant is missing. The other persons who had applied along with the complainant were provided with funds by the opposite party. Subsequently a lawyer notice was sent on 16.1.04 to which the opposite parties replied on 3.2.04 that the scheme has been stopped and that the complainant may take back Rs.5000/- deposited by him. The complainant had sought for a direction to pay Rs.28500/- due to him along with compensation for mental agony etc. The opposite parties/appellants contested the matter that the disbursal of the amount had to be stopped as HUDCO stopped financial help to the Board from 2001. Hence as per the decision of the Board dated 30.6.2001 the Mythri scheme was stopped. Hence the Board has denied any liability in this regard. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 , R1 and R2. The Forum has considered the matter in detail. It is noted that Ext.R1 file contained the application of the complainant dated 30.3.2000 along with possession certificate from the Tahasildar, NOC from the Grama Panchayat, Income certificate from the Village Officer and site plan from Village Officer. Thereafter the complainant was asked to remit Rs.5000/- which was remitted on 30.3.2000. The next note in the file is dated 3.2.04 with reference to the Advocate notice issued by the complainant. It is admitted by PW1, the Accounts Officer of the Housing Board that the scheme was meant for financially weak section of the society. The complainant had to submit a number of certificates, photograph etc. Evidently the opposite party after making the complainant deposit the amount has just kept the file intact without doing anything. The attitude of the opposite party/appellant in making the person who admittedly belonged the weaker strata of the society to remit Rs.5000/- and then not touching the file at all amounts to negligence to the core. Deficiency of service is writ large. All the same the statement that they could not further proceed with the matter vide Ext.R2 the minutes of the Board meeting cannot be ignored . In the circumstance we find that the direction to pay the entire loan amount is liable to be modified. In the circumstance the order of the Forum is modified and it is ordered that the appellant shall return Rs.5000/- remitted by the complainant with 9% interest from the date of deposit of the amount and also pay Rs.10000/- as compensation. The direction to pay cost of Rs.500/- is sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
