IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday, the 30th day of April, 2016
Filed on 16..02..2011
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.46/2011
Between
Complainants:- Opposite party:-
Smt. L.Vaijayanthi, 1. The Secretary,
Mattathil Veedu, Muhamma Rural Co operative,
West of Road Mukku, Housing Society Ltd,
Aryad North P.O. No. A-131, Muhamma.P.O,
Komalapuram Village, Alappuzha-25.
Alappuzha. (Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
(Adv. K. Rajan)
2. The Managin Director,
“House fed”
Kerala State Co operative Housing,
Federation’ Kaloor,
Kochi-17.
(Adv. Jayan.C.Das)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows:- The complainant on mortgaging her property, availed a loan amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the opposite parties. The complainant effected repayment of an amount of Rs. 53,300/- to the opposite parties. The complainant is liable to pay a balance amount of Rs. 1, 00,000/- to the opposite parties. While so on 31st March 2011, the complainant approached the opposite parties to clear off the entire debt through one time settlement scheme. The complainant realized that the opposite parties had not credited the remitted amount of Rs. 53,300/- to the loan account. The opposite parties further demanded more than an amount of Rs. 2, 50,000/- from the complainant. The opposite parties’ acts and omissions constitute deficiency of service. The complainant is very much prepared to clear off the debt lawfully due to the opposite party. However, the opposite parties do not allow the complainant to do so, and is demanding exorbitant amount. The opposite parties are taking steps illegally to proceed against the property of the complainant. Get aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation and other relief.
2. On notices being served, the opposite parties turned up, and filed separate versions. According to the opposite parties, the complainant on 30th April 2001 availed the loan amount of Rs. 1, 25,000/- from the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant had repaid only an amount of Rs. 45,000/- to the opposite parties viz. on 29th March 2003 an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 27th February 2007 an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and on 30th September 2008 an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. That part the complainant had paid no amount towards the loan amount till date. Thus as on 1st January 2011, the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2, 79,078/- to the opposite parties. The complainant with malafide intentions, suppressed material particulars namely, the date on which loan was taken, the rate of interest etc. The instant complaint has been filed with a view to make illegal enrichment. The complaint is without any merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost, the opposite parties strongly contend.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of his proof affidavit, and the documents Ext. A1 to A4 were marked. Both the opposite parties filed courant affidavits and proof affidavits, and marked Ext. B1 to B7 documents.
4. Keeping in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that arise for consideration before us are:-
(1) Whether the complainant has paid off the loan amount to the extent as claimed by her?
(2) Whether the opposite parties’ service is deficient?
(3) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We went through the entire materials placed on record before us by the complainant and the opposite parties. We meticulously perused the complaint, proof affidavits, counter affidavits and all other materials available before us. The complainant case is that the complainant availed a loan amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the opposite parties, and remitted an amount of Rs. 53,300/- towards repayment of the loan amount. Now only an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was left to be paid opposite parties. Notwithstanding this, the opposite parties demanded huge amount from the complainant. Keeping the complainants’ contention in mind we first of all perused the versions and the various affidavits filed by the opposite parties. We with a mathematical exactitude analyzed the documents Ext. B1 to B7 brought on record by the opposite parties. With the result it is unfolded that the complainant has not remitted the amount as claimed by her. It appears that the complainant has without any basis made hollow claims and false contentions. In order to wriggle out of his liability to pay off her debt the complainant has seemingly approached this Forum with a fantastic and fanciful complaint. The complainant has, as it appears repaid only an amount of Rs. 45,000/- vide three payments that too after a year or more break. Thus on computing the principal amount, interest and penal interest we hold that as on 23rd March 2016, the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 4,18,640/- to the opposite parties viz. principal amount Rs. 1,25,000/- + interest Rs. 1,96,213/- + Penal interest Rs. 97,457/- = Rs. 4,18,640/-. In this context, it goes without saying that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
6. For the forgoing facts and finding of the preset case herein above, we are of the view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is disposed accordingly. The parties are left to bear with their own cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
APPENDIX
Evidence of the Complainant:-
Ext. A1 Series: Original pass book issued by the opposite parties (3 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant /Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
