BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 275/2003 Filed on 23/7/2003 Dated: 16..03..2009
Complainant:
K. Thulasi Kumari, Ayyankunnu Puthen Veedu, Mavarathalakonam, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite parties M. Rajendran Nair, Manager, Kerala State Financial Hire Purchase Unit, Medical College Unit, Thiruvananthapuram. Managing Director ..do.. Deputy Tahsildar (R.R) Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. P.K. Venugopal) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 22..07..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 28..02..2009, the Forum on 16..03..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant availed a house modernisation loan of Rs.12,700/- from the 1st opposite party, that the said loan amount is to be repaid in 36 equally monthly installments and that complainant continued to remit Rs.304/- as installment amount; meanwhile complainant was informed by the 1st opposite party that there were huge arrears, if the same was not remitted within 10 days the then opposite parties would initiate Revenue Recovery proceedings to recover the loan amount from the complainant, thereupon, complainant remitted Rs.4,000/-, thereafter when complainant, approached the opposite parties to remit Rs.304/-, opposite parties refused to receive the same. Opposite parties initiated RR proceedings, against which complainant sent complaints to 2nd opposite party, Finance Minister, Chief Minister and Collector and RR proceedings were stayed accordingly, and the entire matter was settled. Meanwhile on 24/6/2003 opposite parties affixed a notice in the house of the complainant informing her of the auction of mortgaged property. But the same was stayed by the Revenue Minister on a complaint by the complainant. Opposite parties did not issue the statement of account so as to enable her to remit the balance amount, rather opposite parties directed the complainant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month. The attempt of the opposite parties to initiate RR proceedings is due to enmity of the opposite parties to the complainant. Hence this complaint to call for records from opposite parties in connection with the said loan and to determine the amount if any is due from the complainant to the opposite parties to lift the RR proceedings against the complainant.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is without bonafides, that the complainant availed a house modernisation loan of Rs.12,700/- at the flat rate of 11% per annum, that the said amount has to be repaid in 36 monthly installments commencing from 15/2/1992, and that in case of default in remitting the installments, on due date, default interest at the rate of 18% is available. The loan ought to have been closed on 15/2/1995. Till 15/4/1992, complainant remitted only three installments. Hence RR steps were initiated for recovering Rs.15,288.80 at the rate of 18%. No amount remitted but complainant obtained stay orders from the Government and when the Stay Order was vacated the 3rd opposite party initiated steps for conducting auction of mortgaged property. As on 30/9/1993, opposite party was entitled to recover an amount of Rs.15,228.10 which rose to Rs.45,897.10 as on 23/7/2003. As per the opposite parties' scheme for granting concession to loanees who availed loan prior to 1995 complainant's balance outstanding was Rs.13,460/-.The claim that Rs.4,000/- is remitted is incorrect. Opposite parties are entitled to recover the said amount as per law. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the amount claimed by the opposite parties is genuine? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant's husband has been examined and cross examined and Exts.P1 to P23 were marked. In rebuttal, The Manager of the 1st opposite party has filed counter affidavit and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant had availed a house modernisation loan of Rs.12,700/- from the opposite parties vide Hire Purchase Agreement (House Modernisation) No.89/91 from the 1st opposite party. Ext.D1 is the copy of the Hire Purchase Agreement (House Modernisation) No.89/91. As per Ext.D1, 1st opposite party has accepted application on 8/10/1991 and, the hirer has deposited the documents of title deeds on 30/9/1991 for the security of amount of Rs.12,700/- advanced to the hirer. The hirer has agreed to pay the entire sum with interest at 11% flat rate per annum in installments at the rate mentioned in the schedule-III. It is further stated in Ext.D1 that if the hirer fails to complete the first or second stage of construction within the time fixed for each as per sanction order the entire amount paid to the hirer with interest at 18% flat calculated from the date of advance to the date of repayment will be payable by the hirer in lump as and when demanded by the Company. In case of failure to pay back the above mentioned amount, immediate steps will be taken to realise the dues and interest thereon from the date of default with cost from the hirer/surety and the secured property or his other properties in the manner deemed fit. As per Schedule III (in Ext.D1) the monthly amount to be paid by the complainant is Rs.481/- and due date of payment commenced from 15/2/1992 to 15/1/1995. As per Ext.P22 series, complainant remitted Rs.308/60 on 19/3/1992, Rs.311/- on 30/4/1992, Rs.311/- on 28/5/1992, Rs.313.50 on 10/7/1992, Rs.313/20 on 12/8/1992. As per Ext.P21 series, Complainant remitted Rs.308.65 on 19/3/1993 and Rs.304/- on 21/6/1993. Altogether, as per Exts. P21 & P22 series, complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 2,369.75 prior to this complaint. It is admitted by the opposite parties that complainant had remitted Rs.11,907/- as per direction of this Forum on 29/10/2003. The copy of the acknowledgment for receipt of the said money is on the records. Submission by the opposite parties is that the loan account was transferred to RR Authority on 30/9/1993 to recover Rs.15,228.10 with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 15/5/1992 till the payment in full. Complainant did not remit the said amount. Opposite parties submitted that the loan amount with the accrued interest, would come to Rs.45,897.10 as on 23/7/2003 and that as per the scheme for granting concession to loanees who availed loan prior to 1995 the amount outstanding in the loan account was recorded as follows: Principal amount Rs. 11907.00 Interest limited to principal amount outstanding (As per the agreement amount due as on date of filing Rs. 11907.00 complaint is Rs.45897.10)
Notice charges Rs. 45.00 DNF Rs. 02.00 5% RR charges Rs. 1256.00 Expense incurred for preparation of Mahazar and sketches Rs. 250.00 ------------ Rs. 25367.00 ----------- Less amount remitted as per direction of this Forum Rs. 11907.00 ----------- Balance outstanding Rs. 13460.00 -----------
It is pertinent to note that as per direction of this Forum complainant had remitted the admitted amount of Rs.11,907 on 29/10/2003. Complainant is liable to remit interest on the principal amount. As per the scheme for granting concession to loanees who availed loan prior to 1995, the interest on the principal amount is limited to the principal outstanding of Rs.11,907/-, otherwise the interest amount would come above the principal outstanding. The said scheme would really benefit the consumer, complainant never produced any other documents to controvert the pleading in the version. Opposite parties did not furnish any other materials to claim other charge. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances, the other charges except the interest amount claimed by the opposite parties are exempted. Complainant is still to pay Rs.11,907/- to opposite parties towards rate of interest. Hence we find the amount of Rs.11,907/- towards interest claimed by the opposite parties is genuine. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant shall pay the opposite parties an amount of Rs.11,907/- in six equal monthly installments. Complainant shall pay the first installment within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, 3rd opposite party can initiate RR proceedings to realise the said amount from the complainant. Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.
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 the16th day of March, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.275/2003
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : S. Vikraman Nair II. Complainant's documents:
P1 Copy of letter No.RR/TVM/6/94/R4 dated 7/3/2002 of special Dy. Tahsildar No.I(RR), KSFE Ltd., Tvpm issued to the complainant P2 " letter No.RR/3632/97/MSR dt.1/4/1997 of Office of the Minister of Revenue, Tvpm issued to the complainant P3 " Govt. Letter No.33978/S5/97/RD dated 14/5/1997 of Revenue (S) Deptt., Tvpm issued to the complainant P4 " sent to the Minister of Revenue by the complainant P5 " Judgement dated 26/8/1994 of CDRF., Tvpm. P6 " complaint dated 8/3/1994 to the Spl. Tahsildar (RR) P7 " application form for Family Personnel Benefit Scheme under peoples plan P8 " Monitoring Report P9 " " P10 " letter No.RR/Tvpm/6/94 dt. 9/7/2001 P11 " letter dated 25/1/1994 issued by MD., KSFE. P12 " Advertisement No.RR/TVM/6/94 dated 20/8/2003 issued by Spl.Dy. Tahsildar, Tvpm. P13 " complaint dated 29/3/1997 sent to Revenue Recovery Officer, KSFE Ltd. P14 " demand notice No.RR/Tvpm/6/94 for before taking possession of the scheduled land P15 " notice No.RR/Tvpm/6/94 dated 1/3/1997 for possession of scheduled property P16 " letter No.HPT/AS/103/91 dt. 10/9/91 of Sr. Manager, HP Unit, Tvpm to the complainant P17 " letter Ref.No.HS-89/91 dt. 18/6/1993 issued by Sr. Manager, H.P. Unit, Tvpm. P18 " Ref.No.IAD/94 dated 9/3/1994 issued by Sr.Manager P19 " sanction order of Hire Purchase Scheme (Housing) Ref.No.HPT/103/91 dt.10/9/1991 P20 " complaint dt. 8/3/1994 submitted to Spl. Tahsildar (RR) KSFE Ltd. By the complainant P21 " chalan for remittance of HP installments dt. 21/6/1993 P22 " Hire rent payment book of agreement No.HS/89/91 P23 " document No.2525/1988 dt, 20/5/2000
Opposite parties' witness : NIL Opposite parties' documents:
D1 Photocopy of HP Agreement No.89/91 D2 " pages of personal ledger D2(a) Copy of Hire purchase scheme (Housing) D3 " Govt. Letter No.33978/55/97/RD dt. 27/6/01.
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 275/2003 Filed on 23/7/2003 Dated: 16..03..2009
Complainant:
K. Thulasi Kumari, Ayyankunnu Puthen Veedu, Mavarathalakonam, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite parties M. Rajendran Nair, Manager, Kerala State Financial Hire Purchase Unit, Medical College Unit, Thiruvananthapuram. Managing Director ..do.. Deputy Tahsildar (R.R) Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. P.K. Venugopal) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 22..07..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 28..02..2009, the Forum on 16..03..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant availed a house modernisation loan of Rs.12,700/- from the 1st opposite party, that the said loan amount is to be repaid in 36 equally monthly installments and that complainant continued to remit Rs.304/- as installment amount; meanwhile complainant was informed by the 1st opposite party that there were huge arrears, if the same was not remitted within 10 days the then opposite parties would initiate Revenue Recovery proceedings to recover the loan amount from the complainant, thereupon, complainant remitted Rs.4,000/-, thereafter when complainant, approached the opposite parties to remit Rs.304/-, opposite parties refused to receive the same. Opposite parties initiated RR proceedings, against which complainant sent complaints to 2nd opposite party, Finance Minister, Chief Minister and Collector and RR proceedings were stayed accordingly, and the entire matter was settled. Meanwhile on 24/6/2003 opposite parties affixed a notice in the house of the complainant informing her of the auction of mortgaged property. But the same was stayed by the Revenue Minister on a complaint by the complainant. Opposite parties did not issue the statement of account so as to enable her to remit the balance amount, rather opposite parties directed the complainant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month. The attempt of the opposite parties to initiate RR proceedings is due to enmity of the opposite parties to the complainant. Hence this complaint to call for records from opposite parties in connection with the said loan and to determine the amount if any is due from the complainant to the opposite parties to lift the RR proceedings against the complainant.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is without bonafides, that the complainant availed a house modernisation loan of Rs.12,700/- at the flat rate of 11% per annum, that the said amount has to be repaid in 36 monthly installments commencing from 15/2/1992, and that in case of default in remitting the installments, on due date, default interest at the rate of 18% is available. The loan ought to have been closed on 15/2/1995. Till 15/4/1992, complainant remitted only three installments. Hence RR steps were initiated for recovering Rs.15,288.80 at the rate of 18%. No amount remitted but complainant obtained stay orders from the Government and when the Stay Order was vacated the 3rd opposite party initiated steps for conducting auction of mortgaged property. As on 30/9/1993, opposite party was entitled to recover an amount of Rs.15,228.10 which rose to Rs.45,897.10 as on 23/7/2003. As per the opposite parties' scheme for granting concession to loanees who availed loan prior to 1995 complainant's balance outstanding was Rs.13,460/-.The claim that Rs.4,000/- is remitted is incorrect. Opposite parties are entitled to recover the said amount as per law. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the amount claimed by the opposite parties is genuine? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant's husband has been examined and cross examined and Exts.P1 to P23 were marked. In rebuttal, The Manager of the 1st opposite party has filed counter affidavit and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant had availed a house modernisation loan of Rs.12,700/- from the opposite parties vide Hire Purchase Agreement (House Modernisation) No.89/91 from the 1st opposite party. Ext.D1 is the copy of the Hire Purchase Agreement (House Modernisation) No.89/91. As per Ext.D1, 1st opposite party has accepted application on 8/10/1991 and, the hirer has deposited the documents of title deeds on 30/9/1991 for the security of amount of Rs.12,700/- advanced to the hirer. The hirer has agreed to pay the entire sum with interest at 11% flat rate per annum in installments at the rate mentioned in the schedule-III. It is further stated in Ext.D1 that if the hirer fails to complete the first or second stage of construction within the time fixed for each as per sanction order the entire amount paid to the hirer with interest at 18% flat calculated from the date of advance to the date of repayment will be payable by the hirer in lump as and when demanded by the Company. In case of failure to pay back the above mentioned amount, immediate steps will be taken to realise the dues and interest thereon from the date of default with cost from the hirer/surety and the secured property or his other properties in the manner deemed fit. As per Schedule III (in Ext.D1) the monthly amount to be paid by the complainant is Rs.481/- and due date of payment commenced from 15/2/1992 to 15/1/1995. As per Ext.P22 series, complainant remitted Rs.308/60 on 19/3/1992, Rs.311/- on 30/4/1992, Rs.311/- on 28/5/1992, Rs.313.50 on 10/7/1992, Rs.313/20 on 12/8/1992. As per Ext.P21 series, Complainant remitted Rs.308.65 on 19/3/1993 and Rs.304/- on 21/6/1993. Altogether, as per Exts. P21 & P22 series, complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 2,369.75 prior to this complaint. It is admitted by the opposite parties that complainant had remitted Rs.11,907/- as per direction of this Forum on 29/10/2003. The copy of the acknowledgment for receipt of the said money is on the records. Submission by the opposite parties is that the loan account was transferred to RR Authority on 30/9/1993 to recover Rs.15,228.10 with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 15/5/1992 till the payment in full. Complainant did not remit the said amount. Opposite parties submitted that the loan amount with the accrued interest, would come to Rs.45,897.10 as on 23/7/2003 and that as per the scheme for granting concession to loanees who availed loan prior to 1995 the amount outstanding in the loan account was recorded as follows: Principal amount Rs. 11907.00 Interest limited to principal amount outstanding (As per the agreement amount due as on date of filing Rs. 11907.00 complaint is Rs.45897.10)
Notice charges Rs. 45.00 DNF Rs. 02.00 5% RR charges Rs. 1256.00 Expense incurred for preparation of Mahazar and sketches Rs. 250.00 ------------ Rs. 25367.00 ----------- Less amount remitted as per direction of this Forum Rs. 11907.00 ----------- Balance outstanding Rs. 13460.00 -----------
It is pertinent to note that as per direction of this Forum complainant had remitted the admitted amount of Rs.11,907 on 29/10/2003. Complainant is liable to remit interest on the principal amount. As per the scheme for granting concession to loanees who availed loan prior to 1995, the interest on the principal amount is limited to the principal outstanding of Rs.11,907/-, otherwise the interest amount would come above the principal outstanding. The said scheme would really benefit the consumer, complainant never produced any other documents to controvert the pleading in the version. Opposite parties did not furnish any other materials to claim other charge. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances, the other charges except the interest amount claimed by the opposite parties are exempted. Complainant is still to pay Rs.11,907/- to opposite parties towards rate of interest. Hence we find the amount of Rs.11,907/- towards interest claimed by the opposite parties is genuine. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant shall pay the opposite parties an amount of Rs.11,907/- in six equal monthly installments. Complainant shall pay the first installment within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, 3rd opposite party can initiate RR proceedings to realise the said amount from the complainant. Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.
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 the16th day of March, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.275/2003
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : S. Vikraman Nair II. Complainant's documents:
P1 Copy of letter No.RR/TVM/6/94/R4 dated 7/3/2002 of special Dy. Tahsildar No.I(RR), KSFE Ltd., Tvpm issued to the complainant P2 " letter No.RR/3632/97/MSR dt.1/4/1997 of Office of the Minister of Revenue, Tvpm issued to the complainant P3 " Govt. Letter No.33978/S5/97/RD dated 14/5/1997 of Revenue (S) Deptt., Tvpm issued to the complainant P4 " sent to the Minister of Revenue by the complainant P5 " Judgement dated 26/8/1994 of CDRF., Tvpm. P6 " complaint dated 8/3/1994 to the Spl. Tahsildar (RR) P7 " application form for Family Personnel Benefit Scheme under peoples plan P8 " Monitoring Report P9 " " P10 " letter No.RR/Tvpm/6/94 dt. 9/7/2001 P11 " letter dated 25/1/1994 issued by MD., KSFE. P12 " Advertisement No.RR/TVM/6/94 dated 20/8/2003 issued by Spl.Dy. Tahsildar, Tvpm. P13 " complaint dated 29/3/1997 sent to Revenue Recovery Officer, KSFE Ltd. P14 " demand notice No.RR/Tvpm/6/94 for before taking possession of the scheduled land P15 " notice No.RR/Tvpm/6/94 dated 1/3/1997 for possession of scheduled property P16 " letter No.HPT/AS/103/91 dt. 10/9/91 of Sr. Manager, HP Unit, Tvpm to the complainant P17 " letter Ref.No.HS-89/91 dt. 18/6/1993 issued by Sr. Manager, H.P. Unit, Tvpm. P18 " Ref.No.IAD/94 dated 9/3/1994 issued by Sr.Manager P19 " sanction order of Hire Purchase Scheme (Housing) Ref.No.HPT/103/91 dt.10/9/1991 P20 " complaint dt. 8/3/1994 submitted to Spl. Tahsildar (RR) KSFE Ltd. By the complainant P21 " chalan for remittance of HP installments dt. 21/6/1993 P22 " Hire rent payment book of agreement No.HS/89/91 P23 " document No.2525/1988 dt, 20/5/2000
Opposite parties' witness : NIL Opposite parties' documents:
D1 Photocopy of HP Agreement No.89/91 D2 " pages of personal ledger D2(a) Copy of Hire purchase scheme (Housing) D3 " Govt. Letter No.33978/55/97/RD dt. 27/6/01.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
