DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 4^th day of August , 2023.

Present   :  Sri.VinayMenon V., President  

        Smt.A.Vidya,A.,Member

        Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member              Date of filing: 06/01/2022                   

CC/3/2022

1. Kamalam,

Panangavu House,

Anamari.P.O,

Kollenkode,ChitturTaluk,

Palakkad Dt.

2. Sasindran.R,

PanangavuHouse,Anamari.P.O

Kollengode,ChitturTaluk,

Palakkad Dt.

3. Susheela,R.,

Panangavu House,

Anamari P.O,

Kollengode,Chitturtaluk,

Palakkad Dt.

4. Gangadharan.R,

Panangavu House,

Anamari P.O,

Kollengode,ChitturTaluk,                                   -                 Complainants

Palakkad Dt.

(By Adv.P.Ajayan)

                                                                   V/s

1.PooramFinserve Pvt. Ltd,

   Rep.by its Manager,Kollengode Branch,

   Palakkad Dt.

2.The manager,

   Credit Department,

   Pooram Finserve Pvt.Ltd,

   25/395/27,Pathayapura building,                            -            Opposite parties

   Round South,Thrissur- 680 001.

   (Both Ops by Advocates B.Ravikumar&Darsan,V.K)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

The complainants availed a Housing loan of Rs.6.50 lakhs from the OP Finance Company in December,2016 by mortgaging their property. They have been remitting the EMIs of Rs.14828/-from 07/02/2017 onwards till 09/04/2021 amounting to Rs.607948/-.Their allegations are

1. The OP had not informed the interest rate of the loan to the   
   •  
2. When they approached the OP for closing the loan, they did not inform the   details in full, instead sent a notice on 22/03/2021 showing the amount to be remitted for closing the loan. Though the complainants remitted the amount as per the said notice the OPs are not returning the mortgaged documents.
3. A complaint was filed in the Kollengode Police Station by the complainants for action under Kerala Money Lender Act, but no action has been taken by them sofar.
4. The OPs filed a case before the Arbitration Court for recovering Rs.568441/-along with further interest @21%pa.

       Aggrieved by this, the complainants have approached this Commission seeking orders for the return of mortgaged documents and a compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs.

2. Notices were served on the opposite parties. They filed their joint version .

Their contentions are as follows.

1. The loan availed by the complainants is not a housing loan but a mortgage loan.
2. The loan was repayable in 84 EMIs and the amount remitted by the complainants ,Rs.607948/-covers only 41 EMIs up to 07/04/2021.
3. The claim of the complainants that they remitted the amount as per OP’s letter dated 22/03/2021 is wrong.

D. When the complainants failed to clear the liability in spite of repeated correspondence, case was filed before the Arbitration Court for the recovery of Rs.568441/-being the balance outstanding in the loan account along with future interest @21%pa as per the terms of agreement executed by the complainants.

3.   Based on the pleadings of the complainants and the OPs ,the following issues were framed for consideration.

1. In view of the pendency/award of the Learned Arbitrator, whether this Commission can adjudicate on the entire factual  materials as pleaded?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service  or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in the calculation of interest/maintenance of accounts?
3. Whether  the resort and procedure adopted in resorting to Arbitration proceedings is in accordance with law?
4. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs sought for?
5. Reliefs & costs if any?

4.  Though the case was referred for settlement on 31/03/2023 ,no settlement could be reached.

5.  The complainants filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A13 as evidence.Ext.A1-A3 are the copies of documents deposited with the OPs for creating mortgage.Ext.A4 is the acknowledgement for the loan application,A5 &A6 are the notices issued by OP for clearing the defaulted amounts,A7 is the letter written by the complainants to the OPs,A8 is the complaint lodged with Kollengode  Police,A9 is the receipt for the payment of EMIs for April,May&June, 2020, A10 &A11 are  the receipts for payment of Rs.24104/-&20380/-respectively, A12 is the sheet containing the details and scribbling on the EMIs payable and paid and A13 is the notice regarding the reference of the case before the Arbitrator along with a copy of the petition. The OPs did not file proof affidavit or mark any documents.

Issue 1

6.  Though the matter has been referred for arbitration, this Commission is having jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issues related to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as provided in section 100 of Consumer Protection Act,2019.Further, the loan agreement executed by the complainants at the time of availing the loan has not been adduced as evidence. Hence we are not in a position to understand what are the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties on the issue of referring the case for adjudication, at the time of availing the loan.

Issue 2&3

7.  The complainants have not marked the loan account statement and the loan agreement executed by them as evidence. Hence it is not possible for this Commission, to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the OPs have charged interest over and above the rates agreed upon while availing loan. As per the proof affidavit filed by the complainants, the loan was to be repaid in 7 years and the EMIs have been paid from February,2017 to April,2021.So it is clear that the complainants have not remitted the amounts sufficient to close the loan account .The amounts said to have been remitted by the complainants in response to the letters dt.22/03/2021(Ext.A5&A6) is the overdue amounts in the loan account and not the entire balance outstanding. Hence loan account is still outstanding and the OP is at liberty to proceed for arbitration or any other legal means for recovery of dues In the absence of the loan agreement, we are not in a position to verify whether the OPs have resorted to arbitration as per the terms agreed upon in the loan agreement or not.

Issues 4&5

 8.  As the complainants failed to convincingly prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs they are not entitled to any relief.

9. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed as one lacking  any merit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed suffer their respective costs.       

          Pronounced in open court on this the 4^th day of August, 2023.

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                   VinayMenon V

                                                President

                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                        Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

Ext.A1: COPY of Title deed no.92/85.

Ext.A2: Copy of Patta No.422/92.

Ext.A3: Photo copy of certified copy of document no.664/2000.

Ext.A4: Acknowledgment dt.26/12/2016 for the loan proposal.

Ext.A5: Default notice dt.22/03/2021issued by OP.

Ext.A6: Default notice dt.22/03/2021 issued by OP.

Ext.A7: Letter written by complainants to the OP.

Ext.A8: Complaint filed before Kollangode Police Station dt.06/05/21.

Ext.A9: Receipt for payment of EMI dt.07/04/21.

Ext.A10: Bank receipt voucher dt.07/04/21.

Ext.A11: Bank receipt voucher dt.07/04/21.

Ext.A12: calculation sheet for EMIs.

Ext.A13: Notice dated 24/06/21 issued by the Sole Arbitrator to the  

              complainants.

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party     : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant          : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party       : Nil

Court Witness: Nil

Cost: NIL

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra sets of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.