BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 116/2008 Filed on 29.05.2008

Dated : 30.07.2010

Complainants:

1. S. Aisha Beevi, Roadarikathu Veedu, 11^th Stone, Nedumangadu P.O.

    

2. M. Shahabdeen, Roadarikathu Veedu, 11^th Stone, Nedumangadu P.O.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite party:

Suresh, Secretary, Agricultural and Urban Development Bank, T 862, Palode P.O.

(By adv. V. Manikantan Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 15.06.2010, the Forum on 30.07.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainants are husband and wife. Complainants approached the opposite party for a housing loan and as per the direction of the opposite party they have furnished all the documents in connection with the loan. The 2^nd complainant availed a trade loan earlier from the bank and the complainant repaid the amount correctly and closed the loan. Meanwhile the 1^st complainant applied another trade loan and the bank sanctioned the loan. But due to illness the 2^nd complainant could not promptly repay the loan installments and thus there is some arrears. In that circumstance the complainants applied the housing loan and the opposite party agreed to pass the loan. On that assurance the complainants produced the original title deed of 3 cents of property in the name of 1^st complainant and the original deed of 7½ cents of property of 2^nd complainant. The complainants applied for the loan on 05.07.2007. But till now the opposite party neither issued the loan amount nor returned the original title deeds. As per the complainant the opposite party, the Secretary, is only liable for the grievances of the complainants.

Opposite party filed version contending the entire allegations against him. The opposite party stated that as per Sec. 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 the complaint is not maintainable and the consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. He stated that the bank initiated legal process for the house loan and at the time of site inspection of the property offered as security, the neighbour of the property told the bank officials that the same property is having court attachment. So the bank issued a letter dated 27.10.2007 to the village officer, Nedumangadu to know the correct position of the property in Sy. No. 173/13 which is offered as security, the village officer intimated that the property is attached by the Hon'ble Sub Court, Nedumangadu in I.A No. 415/07 in O.A No. 55/07 and I.A No. 340/07 in O.S 46/07. The opposite party stated that the complainants actually cheated the bank by furnishing the security of attached property by a court of law for the renewal trade loan. The main intention of the complainants by furnishing the attached property as security also for the new housing loan is to cheat the bank. Even he remitted only Rs. 400/- on 07.02.2008 for the renewed loan dated 19.09.2007 for Rs. 2 lakhs. Opposite party further stated that the complainants approached this Forum not with a clean hand.

In this case the complainants have filed proof affidavit and produced some documents as Ext. P1 series. The 1^st complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite party cross examined him. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the opposite party has stated that as per Sec. 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 this complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. But as per Sec. 3 of Consumer Protection Act, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

In this case the complainants have filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has been cross examined by the opposite party. The complainant produced the documents relating to the house loan before this Forum as Ext. P1 series. Among these documents we can see a document issued by the Village Officer, Nedumangadu dated 08.01.2008 stating that the property belonging to 2^nd complainant in Re. Sy. No. 173/13 there is no case pending in any court in connection with this 01.20 areas of property. But in the version the opposite party stated that the village officer issued a letter to them stating that the property is attached by the Hon'ble Sub Court, Nedumangadu in I.A No. 415/07 in O.A No. 55/07 and I.A No. 340/07 in O.S 46/07. But the opposite party did not produce any evidence to prove that statement. In this case the opposite party did not issue house loan to the complainants and they have not returned the original title deeds to the complainants. Now the title deeds of 10½ cents of property of the complainants are within the custody of the opposite party. The opposite party issued only Rs. 2 lakhs trade loan to the 2^nd complainant and also they have obtained 12 blank cheques from the 2^nd complainant. The complainant filed this complaint before this Forum on 29.05.2008 as per the document dated 08.01.2008 issued by the Village Officer, Nedumangadu, there was no court attachment order on this property (01.20 area). In this circumstance the opposite party had sufficient time to settle the matter, but the opposite party did not turn up to settle the matter. From the documents and evidence adduced by the complainants, we find that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. The complainants' repeated requests and demands are denied by the opposite party. If the opposite party is not willing to issue loan to the complainants on the basis that there has been attachment order on the property proposed for loan, they should definitely return the original deeds to the complainants. But in this case the opposite party neither issued the loan to the complainant nor returned the title deeds to the complainants. From the pleadings and other evidences adduced by the complainants we find the helplessness and pathetic conditions of the complainants due to financial difficulty. In these circumstances, if the opposite party had returned the original title deed of 01.20 area of property to the 1^st complainant, they would have definitely overcome the financial crisis. Opposite party's bank is a co-operative bank. The complainants are the members of the bank. All the co-operative banks are functioning in our state for the welfare of the public, especially its members. In this case the opposite party, Secretary, has the right to allow the loan if the conditions are fulfilled. We are aware of the fact that the bank authority has the discretionary power to issue loan or not. Hence we do not direct the opposite party to issue loan to the complainants. But the opposite party has not returned the title deeds till now which definitely is a deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint is partly allowed.

In the result, the opposite party is directed to return the original title deed of 01.20 area of property in Sy. No. 173/13 of 1^st complainant to the complainants and the opposite party shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainants. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount. Opposite party shall have the right to keep the title deed of 7½ cents of property of 2^nd complainant till the closure of the trade loan.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of July 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 116/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Shahabudheen

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of receipts

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb