SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is filed for getting direction to opp.parties to repay Rs.35,471/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% and compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant availed a Housing loan from the 1st opp.party under MIG Scheme. The total amount of loan as per the scheme was Rs.60,000/-. Out of this amount Rs.29,889/- was paid to the complainant amount in two instalments and that amount was utilized by the complainant for the construction. The complainant applied for the 3rd instalment. The opp.party delayedfor payment and so the complaint could not receive the balance amount. The 1st opp.party initiated RR Proceedings for Rs.80,661/- as the complainant defaulted in repayment. Complainant remitted the whole amount before RR. Tahsildar on 11.12.2003. The opp.party demanded 31475/- for the release of the documents which were submitted by the complainant before the opp.party as a guarantee of Loan and the complainant was forced to remit that excess amount also because he wanted release of the document. The opp.party has no right to collect excess amount. As per the Recovery notice itself the opp.party had collected an excess amount of Rs.3976/- The opp.party has no right to collect these excess amount. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting the excess amount collected along with interest and cost. The opp.parties filed version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the MIG loan was sanctioned to the complainant and two instalments were given to him. The complainant was not willing to receive the 3rd instalment. The complainant failed to repay the loan amount also. The opp.parties sent notice on 20.5.94 informing that they will go with the proceeding to recover the amount. On 5.7.1994 to the complainant had given an application stating that he could not remit the amount due to some problems in his family and he is unable to pay the amount fully in one instalment. He had remitted Rs.10,000/- on that day itself and agreed to repay the balance amount before 1994 December. But the complainant failed to remit the amount. So on 25.5.2000 opp.party initiated RR proceedings against the complaint. As per the accounts, the amount payable on that day was Rs.76628/- After deduction of collection charges opp.party has received only Rs.76685/- from the Tahasildar in instalments upto 7.1.2004. The statement that the full amount along with collection charge were paid is not true. Only on 4.1.2006 the complainant applied for his documents. He had remitted Rs.31475/- as the full and final settlement deducting penal interest as per the provisions of one time settlement scheme. He had not raised any contention about the amount. The statement of accounts was also served to the complainant on his request. The complainant had not remitted the amount as on the date recorded in his complaint. No excess amount was collected from the complainant. No such deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed. The complainant filed affidavit. Exhibits P1 to P6 and D1 to D5 marked. PW.1 examined. The opp.parties had no oral evidence The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party 2. Compensation and cost. Points 1 and 2 It is an admitted fact that the complainant has availed a housing loan under MIG Scheme and he defaulted in repayment. The matter to be decided in this case is that whether the opp.parties collected excess amount from the complainant illegally . The argument of the complainant is that he has paid the full amount as directed in the R.R.proceedings. As per the provisions of OTS scheme penal interest was not deducted. An additional amount of Rs.31475/- was illegally collected from him. As per the statement the opp.parties obtained an additional amount of Rs.3976/- through R.R. proceeding itself. The opp.party argued that Revenue Recovery steps were initiated to realize the amount Rs.80661/- which was pending as on 5/2000. Out of this amount Rs.4033/- goes to RR officer being RR charges and only Rs.76628/- has been received on different occasions during the period from 24.3.2001 to 7.1.2004. The amounts were received in instalments and not remitted as a lumpsum after the initiation of RR proceedings the loanee is fully liable to pay penal interest until the date of full payment. Exhibits P4 is the letter sent by RR Tahasildar to the 1st opp.party dated 3.2.2004. Particulars of the remittance of the complainant clearly stated in that letter. It is also stated that further action in this case is dropped and if there is any further action it may be informed to them immediately. No information was given to the Tahasildar or to the complainant. The 1st opp.party was bound to close the accounts at that time itself. If there was any claim for any balance amount, the opp.parties were liable to inform the complainant. No information was given. No demand notice was issued Opp.parties havestated in their version that as per the accounts at the time of intimation of RR proceedings the total amount payable by the complainant was Rs.76628/- by way of RR proceedings. The 1st opp.party has received Rs.76685/- only on 7.1.2004. On perusal of Ext.P4 and D5 we could understand that the amount as per the RR proceedings was fully paid up. The last payment was on 11.12.2003. No further steps were taken by the opp.parties The opp.parties have stated in their version that the application was given to them by the complainant only on 4.1.2006 and the matter was settled as per provisions of OTS Scheme. The complainant had remitted only Rs.10,000/- on 5.7.1994 and Rs.31475/- on 13.1.1006 before the 1st opp.party. The balance amount was remitted before the RR Tahasildar. The total amount Rs.76628/- was received only on 7.1.2004 . The statement of the complainant that he had remitted amounts on dates 29.11.2000, 16.1.2001, 19.2.2001, 2.6.2001, 5.7.2001, 7.9.2001, 3.1.2002, 11.4.2002, 2.7.2003, 11.12.2003and 7.1.2004 is not true. We have carefully verified Exts P4 and D5 and it is found that the statement of the complainant is true. The complainant is eligible to get all the deductions as per OTS scheme and to be exempted from remitting penal interest etc. Interest should be payable only for the balance amount from time to time. On perusal of the complaint, affidavit and on a detailed verification of documents produced we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties In the result the complaint is allowed. As the 1st opp.party is not in existence as per the Government order and liabilities and responsibilities of 1st opp.party are vested on the 3rd opp.party, the 3rd opp.party is directed to pay Rs.35471/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% . The 3rd opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.1500/- as compensation and cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – K. Sugathan List of documents for the complainant P1. – Loan proceedings dated 25.8.89 P2. – Proceedings for loan [2n instalment] dated 15.12.89 P3. – Photocopy of R.R.l proceedings P4. – Letter dated 3.2.2004 P5. – Letter from Development Authority P6. – Letter dated 11.1.2006 P7. – Receipt dated 13.1.2006. List of witnesses for the opp.party : NIL List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Application D2. – Intimation of sanctioning loan dated 23.8.89. D3. – Application dt. 5.7.2004 D4. – Notice D5.- Statement of accounts dated 20..2.2006 | 
