By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case of complainant is that the complainant is a resident in the 1st respondent Panchayat. The complainant was selected as a beneficiary of Mythree Housing Scheme and the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- on 14/3/2000 at 1st respondent Panchayat office. One receipt had issued by Panchayat. It was told that Rs.28,000/- would be allotted for construction of house. After the payment of her part she had approached the respondent for getting the amount for construction of house. Applications were also given to respondent. But no amount was given. It is the deficiency in service and willful negligence on the part of respondents. So the complainant was forced to send a lawyer notice but no relief so far. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of 3rd respondent are that on 6/4/00 the 1st respondent had submitted the application of complainant in the Thrissur division office of 3rd respondent for getting loan as per Mythree House Construction Scheme. On 6/4/00 itself the Panchayat remitted Rs.12,500/- including the share of Panchayat and also the share of beneficiary. But the complainant was failed to execute the agreement between 3rd respondent. Out of Rs.28,000/- Rs.9,000/- was the Government subsidy. Owing to the flood of applications and on the non availability of Government subsidy this respondent was forced to stop the scheme. So it was decided not to consider the applications in which agreements were not executed before 8/6/01. Accordingly the application of complainant was not considered. This respondent is ready to return the amount remitted by complainant with interest at the rate of Treasury Savings Bank to 1st respondent. The complainant has no transactions with this respondent. There was no deficiency in service from this respondent. Hence dismiss.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte.
4. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from respondents ?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
5. The evidence adduced consists of oral testimony of PW1, Exhibits P1 to P4 series and Exhibit R1.
6. The complaint is filed to get the benefit of Mythree Housing Scheme or to get back the amount remitted by complainant with interest along with compensation. It is the case of complainant that she had been selected as a beneficiary of Mythree Housing Scheme and she had remitted the beneficiary share of Rs.5,000/- in 1st respondent Panchayat on 14/3/00. But the housing scheme benefit was not obtained to her and the remitted
amount also not obtained. The complainant would say that this act is a deficiency in service on the part of respondents. The 3rd respondent only contested the matter and the 1st and 2nd respondents who are Secretary and President of Punnayur Grama Panchayat remained exparte.
7. It is the contention of 3rd respondent that they are ready to return the amount remitted by complainant with 1st respondent at the interest rate of Treasury Savings Bank account. The amount remitted by complainant and paid by 1st respondent etc. are admitted by 3rd respondent.
8. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibit P1 to P4 series documents were marked on her part. It is the contention of 3rd respondent that there is no transaction between this respondent and complainant. During examination also PW1 stated that the 1st respondent is liable to compensate the loss incurred to her. She deposed that she did not go to 3rd respondents office and no agreement executed between her and 3rd respondent. She admitted during examination that she is ready to settle the dispute if Rs.5,000/- with interest of government rate is paid to her.
9. It is to be noted that the complainant will be satisfied if Rs.5,000/- with government rate of interest is returned to her. 3rd respondent agreed to return Rs.5,000/- with interest at Treasury savings bank a/c to Panchayat. Even if the counter is filed by 3rd respondent in the year 2009 the Panchayat failed to get the amount from 3rd respondent and to paid to complainant. It is the contention of 3rd respondent that they have decided to stop the scheme and Exhibit R1 is produced. The decision of Housing Board was on 30/6/01. Even if the complaint had filed in the year 2005 the Panchayat failed to redress the grievance of complainant. So the Panchayat is liable to give 12% interest to complainant from the date of deposit. Even after accepting the lawyer notice no action was taken by Panchayat. So definitely Panchayat is liable to pay interest to the complainant. The 3rd respondent agreed that they are ready to give government rate of interest. But in circumstance of the case complainant is entitled to get 12% interest.
10. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.5,000/- and the 1st respondent Panchayat is directed to pay 12% interest from the date of deposit till realization with costs Rs.750/- to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 18th day of February 2012.
