R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.

            This  complaint is filed praying that the complainant may be absolved from the liability as per demand notice undated having ref.No.R5/34/Kollam/05.   The complainant  further prayed for compensation Rs.5,00,000/- cost Rs. 2000/- and for getting direction to IV opp.party not to  proceed with the attachment of complainant’s landed property.

          Briefly stated the facts of the case is that the complainant had availed a loan for Rs.1,50,000/- from the 1^st opp.party on 12..3..2009 mortgaging the property owned by him which  extends 4.40 Are comprised in survey.No.554/2 of Chirakkara village, Kollam District.   The loan account No. was Q.218/MIG/97.

          The complainant had repaid the entire loan amount and also paid Rs.1,57,895/- towards interest and other charges and hence the opp.party executed Release Deed on 4..7..2005.

          After all these ,  quite surprisingly an undated notice prior to the attachment  of land demanding Rs.2,08,424/- was  affixed by the opp.party.   The  proceedings of attaching his land  was a deliberate act and it amounts to deficiency in service which resulted   in heavy pain and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting reliefs.

          The opp.parties 1, 2 and 4 filed version contending  the allegation of the complainant.   The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   The complainant availed a loan for Rs.1,50,000/- from 2, 3 and 4 opp.parties.   The loan amount was to be repaid with interest in  120 equated monthly instalments.   Since complainant defaulted in repayment RR proceedings was recommended against the complainant and requisition sent to the Dist Collector, Kollam  demanding recovery of Rs.208424/- +interest.   As per the  request  of the complainant the KHSB gave him many benefits and the complainant  had cleared his dues on 30..6..2005.   Release deed was issued to him on 4..7..05.  On 25..6..2005 the Board had given intimation to the District Collector, Kollam that the Board is withdrawing the request for RR against the complainant.  But in the due  course, based on the above said Demand Notice the District collector, Kollam had issued Demand Notice to the complainant 

It is specifically stated in the  notice that objection to the   notice can be preferred within 10 days of its service.   The complainant could approach the Board or village officer to sent back  the demand notice.  But  without invoking the above said ways, the complainant filed this complaint with evil intention.  No willful latches or deficiency in service from the part of opp.party.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.     Even though sufficient opportunity has been given the 3^rd opp.party remained absent and hence set exparte.

From the side of the complainant PW.1 was examined.  Exts. P1 to P5 marked.

From the side of opp.parties DW.1 to DW.4 were examined.   Exts. D1 to D4 marked.

The points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties?

2.     Reliefs and costs?

Points 1 and 2

Admittedly the complainant had availed housing loan for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and defaulted in repayment.  It is also admitted that the complainant had repaid the entire amount along with interest accrued and hence the opp.party executed release deed on 4..7..2005

          The learned counsel for the complainant argued that it cannot be believed that on the basis of a  request made by a defaulter a letter for withdrawal of RR proceeding was prepared and sent to  the Dist. Collector.   The alleged  request was not produced before the Forum.  While in the cross examination DW.1 admitted  that the request made by the complainant was not produced by the opp.party and  stated that it can be produced.   Even though he had stated so,  the opp.parties had not produced any documents to prove that the complainant had made the request.

          In Ext. P1, the release deed executed by the Housing Board in favour of the complainant, it  is stated that the mortgager has repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and also paid all sums by way of interest Rs.1,47,899/- due under the said Mortgage deed…”

          Ext. P2  a receipt also shows that a sum of Rs.1,57,895/- was paid by the complainant on 30..6..2005.   From these facts it is clear that no request was made to the opp.party by the complainant as alleged by the opp.parties.   The   opp.party failed to prove the alleged request, on the basis which the opp.party had strongly contended that the letter for withdrawal of Revenue Recovery was prepared and sent to the Collector.   The contention that the  requisition for withdrawal of RR proceedings  was intimated to the Collectorate through telephone also is strange and no bonafides as the complainant has argued.

          The pertinent point to be noted here is that whether the opp.parties were in a  practice of withdrawing RR proceedings  on the basis of the  request of a defaulter to settle the accounts and only on the basis of an assurance given by a chronic defaulter.    While in cross examination the learned counsel for the complainant raised the question to the  witnesses the side of the opp.party.   The counsel put the question while cross examination of DW.2 that “ enA Lmu\]lff Llxjrk\ RR proceeding withdraw svu\ulR request  rHdj tr\rlSnl eyukr\rf\ ? a.   enALmv\vksdlxxlA tr\rk eyB\BfjsRy Lmjc\Flrf\fjH Lln\ request fu\ulyl]jiv\vf\

DW.3 the Accounts Officer, KSHB also had stated in cross examination that  enA Lmv\vfjrk SC,Sa  R.R rmemj rjGf\fjiu\]kf\frjrk\  requisition rHdkdukxxk;  The counsel for the complainant  put further question that 25..6..2005  H  requisition rHdj tr\rkeyukr\rfk Cgjuh\hh\Shl?  DW.3  answered that complainant 25..6.2005  H   QlEJcjH <lwgluj loan close  svu\ulA tr\rk\ Kye\ekrHdjufrkcgjv\v\ Lr\rk fr\sr fu\ulyl]jiv\v letter Lln\ 1&7H Collectorrk despatch  svu\ff\\\\” In  our experience there is no practice of withdrawing RR proceeding merely  upon an assurance from the defaulter.   This contention of the opp.party in unbelievable and without any bonafides.

Further contention of the opp.party is that they had sent a letter to Dist. Collector for withdrawal of RR proceeding and it was informed to the complainant on  1.7..2005 .   DW.1 admitted in cross examination that  there is no seal in Ext. D2 and also had stated that  he cannot say authoritatively  whether the mark which is seen in Ext. D2 is signature or not.  He had added that  the Despatch Register also should be produced to prove the authority.

The learned counsel for the complainant put the question to DW.2  while in cross examination that “ RR   rmemj  stop  svu\ukr\rfk cA>Pjv\v\  follow-up rmf\fjujgkr\Srl ? [a] letter  rHdj;  The learned counsel further put a pertinent question that “ letter  dj}jufluj tr\srb\djhkA rjb\bX S>lp\PUse\e}j}kn\sml? The answer was    “Lb\bsr Srl]lyjh\h”

          The  opp.parties had admitted that a Demand Notice  prior to the attachment of land was happened to be affixed in the complainant residence demanding due amount  Rs.2,08,424/- as on 1..5..2005.   No  contention was raised by the opp.parties in this regard.  It is also admitted by opp.parties that the notice is undated and it was issued on the basis of the RR proceeding initiated by the opp.parties.

The opp.parties produced the Ext. D3 notice dated 9…12..2009 which was sent from the District Collector, Kollam to the Exe. Engineer, KSHB, Kollam in reply of his letter dated 8.12.2009 stating  that the letter sent by KSHB withdrawing RR proceeding was sent to  the RR Tahsildar, Kollam for further proceedings.   It is clear from these letters that any  action or enquiry regarding the following up of the withdrawal of RR proceedings was made only on 8..12..2008.

It is an admitted fact that a Demand Notice prior to the attachment of land was happened to be affixed in the premisses of the complainant   The above said act of opp.parties caused to  tarnish the reputation of the complainant and he  had sustained  much mental agony.   DW.1 had also admitted in cross exam that “30..6..2005   H loan account  sh akqkiR fkdukA Lmv\vk;  30;;6;;2005 G enA  Lmv\v\ document  return  svu\fSC,A 24;;7;;2007 H 2[08[424 goe Lmu\]nsar\rkdlnjv\v\ we\fj Srl}Jc\  efjv\vfkiqj  complainant rk\ alrcjdd\SxCA igjdukA Lf\  >jcjrcjsr >lPj\]kdukA svu\fk tr\rkeyB\BlH CgjuldlA;”

The opp.parties were bound to make  sure  that the notice for withdrawal of RR proceeding was properly served and further actions were proceeded with within proper time.

On the basis of afore mentioned circumstances and facts discussed above we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties.  The points found accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part.   The opp.parties 1,2 and 4 are directed to pay compensation Rs.50,000/- and cost Rs.1500/- to the complainant.   The opp.parties are further directed to  absolve the complainant from the liability as per Demand Notice No.R5/34/Kollam/05 and not to proceed with attachment of the  property owned by the complainant comprised in Survey No.554/2 of Chirakkara Village, Kollam District..

The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order.

Dated this the 9the day of March 2009.

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Shajahan

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Release deed

P2. – Receipt

P3. – Copy of title deed

P4. – Encumbrance certificate

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – Viswanadhan.R

DW.2. - Thulasi

DW.3. – Sree Sabu

DW.4. – Chithra

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. – Authorisation order

D2. – Letter issued to the Dist. Collector dt. 25..6..2005

D3 – Letter dt. 9..12..2009

D4. – Copy of Local Delivery Register

                                                                                                C