KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL 356/08 JUDGMENT ORDER: 14.10.2009 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PREISDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The Secretary, : APPELLANT Kerala State Housing Board, Represented by the Deputy Secretary Loans, Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.Saji.S.L) vs. Sri.Sreedharan, S/o Chathu, : RESPONDENT Chamakkandi Meethal, Thalaparambil, Arikulam Amsom, Mavat Desom, Koilandy Taluk, Kozhikode. JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 15.10.08 of CDRF, Kozhikkode in OP.250/05. The appellants are the opposite parties/Housing Board who are under orders to allot the 3rd installment to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had applied for a loan under Mythri Housing Project and the first and 2nd installments were allotted to him. The 3rd installment was withheld by the opposite parties stating that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and constructed 72 M 2 instead of 50 M 2. Hence alleging deficiency in service he filed the complaint before the Forum. 3. The opposite parties filed version and contended that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and constructed 72 M 2 instead of maximum limit 50 M 2. It is submitted by the opposite parties that they conducted inspection and difference in the construction brought to the notice of the complainant. According to them the complainant has to return the 1st and 2nd installments already paid to him. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 and from the side of the opposite party RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B11 were marked. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants. There was no representation for the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted that the complainant signed the loan application which clearly states that any violation of condition will disentitle the applicant in disbursing further instalments of loan. He submitted that the complainant constructed more than the permitted area. He had constructed 72 M 2 instead of 50 M2 . Hence as per the agreed terms the complainant is not eligible for the 3rd installment and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 6. The case of the appellant is that the respondent/complainant had increased the plinth area of the building to 72 M 2 which is above the prescribed area of 50 M2 and it is because of the said violation that the 3rd installment was denied to the complainant. On an appreciation of the condition of the loan application it is noted that 1st installment can be given on getting certificate of the village officer regarding the license for construction of the building, the area of the building and the location. It is also noted that the 2nd installment can be given on production of the certificate issued by the officers mentioned in para 13 of the said agreement and 3rd installment can be given on satisfaction of the condition No.14. It is also noted that 1st and 2nd installments were given on satisfying the conditions stipulated and the objection for payment of 3rd installment is raised only thereafter. The appellant/opposite parties have not stated as to which point the plinth area has been increased. It is to be found that the opposite parties have no objection regarding the payment of 1st and 2nd installments. In such a situation it is duty bound for the appellant/opposite party to pay 3rd installment also as no objection were raised by them during the 1st and 2nd stage. As noted by the Forum below if the opposite parties had strictly followed the conditions they would have definitely found out the increase in plinth area at the 1st stage itself. Having failed to do so it is unjustifiable for them to deny the payment of 3rd installment thereby putting the complainant in hardships. The Forum below has rightly ordered for the payment of 3rd installment and we do not find any cogent reasons to interfere with the finding and conclusions arrived at by the Forum below. In the result the appeal is dismissed and the order of the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs. SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PREISDENT ps
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
