BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> C.C.No. 138/2006 Filed on 05.05.2006<br /> Dated : 15.05.2008<br /> Complainants:<br /> 1.Augusta Mabel, Jobel House, Kodangavila from Vattavila Puthen <br /> Veedu, Kodangavila P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.M. Joseph, Jobel House, Kodangavila from Vattavila Puthen <br /> Veedu, Kodangavila P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. Smt. J. Maya)<br /> Opposite party: <br /> Kerala State Housing Board Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Secretary.<br /> (By advs. Beena P.S & Soya Johnson)<br /> This O.P having been heard on 24.04.2008, the Forum on 15.05.2008<br /> delivered the following: <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT<br /> This complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to release the bond and other documents furnished by the complainant. Further relief sought for is for directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 2250/- with interest and for awarding compensation of Rs. 10000/- and also for awarding cost of the complaint. The case of the complainants is that complainants jointly availed a house loan from the office of the opposite party as No.T 126/HIC/90 for an amount of Rs. 100000/- by way of four instalments. The interest of the 3 instalments was already deducted. Because of the unnecessary formalities and delay caused in the office of the opposite party, the complainants have suffered much. Opposite party initiated R.R.Proceedings and the revenue authorities collected Rs. 162250/- from the complainants. At the request of the opposite party, the Deputy Tahsildar (RR) issued D5 14233/97 notice demanding Rs. 187671/- (Principal amount Rs. 100000/- and interest and penal interest Rs. 87671/-) without proper calculation. The complainants challenged the said notice in various forums but the opposite party recovered Rs. 162250/- from the complainants. Complainants filed a petition before the opposite party on 09.08.2001 requesting to settle the matter. But there is no response from the opposite party. According to complainants, complainants are liable to pay only Rs. 160000/-. Opposite party recovered an excess amount of Rs. 2250/- from the complainants. On 05.03.2005 complainants issue notice requesting to settle the matter. But the opposite party has no response to the said notice. Because of the deficiency in service of the opposite party complainants suffered huge amount of loss, hardship and mental agony. Hence this complaint claiming refund of the amount of Rs. 2250/-, Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of the complaint. <br /> 2. Opposite party filed vakalath, but no version filed. Opposite party set exparte. <br /> 3.The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?<br /> (ii)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?<br /> (iii)Whether complainants are entitled to get released the bond and documents from opposite party?<br /> (iv)Other reliefs and costs?<br /> 4.On the part of complainants, 2nd complainant as PW1 filed<br /> affidavit and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked. <br /> 5.Points (i) to (iv): - The case of the complainants is that<br /> complainants have jointly availed a house loan from the opposite party T 126/HIG/90 for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh by way of four instalments and the interest of three instalments already deducted. The date of availed loan is not mentioned in the complaint and also the rate of interest. Without disclosing the date of loan availed, the date of last repayment and the rate at which the said loan availed, it would be impossible to assess the liability of the complainants. PW1 in his affidavit submitted that it is due to the delay and formalities on the part of opposite party, the complainants were put to much difficulties. Ext. P1 is the copy of the demand notice dated 25.07.1997 issued by the Taluk Office, Neyyattinkara to the complainant. As per Ext. P1 demand notice complainants were directed to remit Rs. 1,87,671/-, failing which the said amount would be realized from the attached properties in public auction. PW1 deposed that complainants’ liability to opposite party is to pay Rs. 1,60,000/- only. Complainant did not disclose in his affidavit, the date of availed loan, the mode of its repayment, the terms of the said loan, the rate of interest, the documents upon which the said loan availed etc. It is also not clear from the affidavit the mode of calculation adopted by the complainants to arrive at a figure of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The loan agreement and terms and conditions as per agreement were not revealed by the complainants. Ext. P2 is the copy of statement of account showing the amounts realized from the complainants under Revenue Recovery proceedings, issued by the Village Officer Neyyattinkara to the complainant. A perusal of Ext. P2 would disclose that an amount of Rs. 162250/- was realized from the complainant by the opposite party, out of the said amount Rs. 154375/- towards the principal amount and Rs. 7875 towards collection charge. Ext. P3 is the copy of letter dated 09.08.2001 issued by the 2nd complainant to the opposite party. In Ext. P3 it is alleged by the complainant that opposite party has recovered illegally an excess amount of Rs. 2250/- from the complainants. Complainants have requested the opposite party to settle the above loan, release the mortgage and return the excess amount realized from the complainants. Ext. P4 is the copy of the reply-dated 25.06.2002 sent by the complainants to the opposite party with reference to RR proceedings. As per Ext. P3, the complainants submitted that they are not bound to pay penal interest during this time. The opposite party reduced interest and waived penal interest. It is submitted by the complainants that they are entitled to get those benefits and requested the opposite party to close the account and release the mortgage bond. Ext. P5 is the copy of another letter sent by the 2nd complainant to opposite party. On going through the complaint, affidavit and Exts. P1 to P5, it is found that this complaint is related to ext. P1 dated 25.07.1997 and Ext. P2 dated 23.07.2001, while this complaint was filed on 05.05.2006. As per Sec. 24 A of COPRA, the complaint is to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. Complainants never produced any correspondence issued by the opposite party except Exts. P1 and P2. One of the prayers in the complaint has been to direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 2250/- with interest on the strength of ext. P1 demand notice dated 25.07.1997 and Ext. P2 statement of account dated 23.07.2001. Complainants had never revealed either in the affidavit or in the complaint the terms of loan and documents produced. In view of what had been observed above, we hold that this complaint is barred by limitation.<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed. <br /> 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.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th May 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> Jb<br /> C.C.No. 138/2006<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - Joseph<br /> II COMPLAINANTS' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Copy of demand notice No. D5 14233/97 dated 25.07.1997 <br /> issued by the Taluk Office, Neyyattinkara to the complainant.<br /> <br /> P2 - Copy of statement given by the Village Office, Neyyattinkara <br /> dated 23.07.2001.<br /> <br /> P3 - Copy of request letter of the 2nd complainant dated 09.08.2001 to <br /> settle the loan.<br /> <br /> P4 - Copy of request letter of the 2nd complainant dated 25.06.2002 to<br /> close the account and release mortgage bond.<br /> <br /> P5 - Copy of request letter of the 2nd complainant dated 05.03.2005 <br /> to close the loan.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT