ORDER SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. V.V. Antony, has filed this complaint before the Forum on 17.01.09 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- He had availed a loan of Rs. 1,21,222/- (Rupees One lakh twenty one thousand two hundred and twenty two only) from the 5th opposite party – The Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. – Alappuzha – on 27.07.98. He repaid an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) out of the said loan amount on 20.11.2000. There was gross deficiency in service on the side of the 5th opposite party in accounting the repayment, and that there was striking variation in the account maintained by him and the opposite parties. 5th opposite party had not finished the exact amount particulars to him. So he decided to abstain from making payment, and there was no renewal of acknowledgement of liability by him in that regard. Since the amount has been hopelessly barred by limitation and that 5th opposite party has no right or authority to proceed against him. He got a notice dated. 07.11.08 regarding the Revenue Recovery steps. Opposite parties 1st to 4th are acting on behalf of the 5th opposite party. The alleged dues are not at all legally recoverable and is barred by limitation. Hence this complaint seeking relief. 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party 1st and 2nd appeared and filed statement of facts. Opposite parties 3rd and 4th have not entered appearance or filed any statement. 5th opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version. 3. In the version of the 5th opposite party, it is stated that the complainant has availed a sum of Rs. 1,14,472/- (Rupees One lakh fourteen thousand four hundred and seventy two only) from them by way of loan amount and denied the remittance of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) by the complainant, and denied the allegation of variations in the account, of the complainant. It is stated that one of the sureties of the complainant had paid a total 87 installments at the rate of Rs. 400/- from 17.07.01 to 12.12.08 by way of salary recovery and that stop recovery letter has been sent since the loan is long pending. It is stated that they are keeping proper account regarding the said loan, and they are given statutory notice to the complainant and sureties on 27.09.08, since the complaint was a chronic defaulter. So they had given Revenue Recovery requisition to the District Collector, and proceedings are taken in time. It is further stated that the 3rd opposite party has taken only the legal proceedings against the complainant. There is no fraud or foul play in the proceedings of opposite party 1st to 4th, and is not hit by the limitation. It is further stated that one of the surety had remitted the installment till 12.12.08 by way of salary recovery. There is no deficiency in service on their part and there is no irregularities or errors in calculating the interest, and that the complaint is not entitled to any claim and recover any relief from them. 3. Considering the contentions of the 5th opposite party, this Forum has raised the issues. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief from the opposite parties? 2. Regarding compensations and costs? 4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in the support of his case along with documents– Ext.A1 to A2 – marked. Ext. A1 is the Demand Notice No. B8/654/04/Misc (R.Dis./B10 -50641/08 dtd. 20.10.08 of D.C,Allpy-PC/Allpy/7/98 dtd.. 30.09.08) dtd. 07.11.08, issued to the complainant and sureties. It shows that an amount of Rs. 2,21,114/- together with interest at the rate of 19% for Rs. 1,23,259/- from (30.09.08 + 5% CC+ DNF -2). Ext. A2 is the original Beneficiary Loan Card issued by the 5th opposite party. It shows the details of remittance made by the complainant. 5. 5thopposite party has filed proof affidavit in support of their case and produced documents in evidence – Ext. B1 series to B7 series – marked – Ext. B1 series are the receipts issued by the 5th opposite party to the complainants. It shows the remittance of amounts by the complainant, Ext. B2 is the demand notice dtd.11.12.99 to the complainant, issued by the 5th opposite party, intimating the arrear amount. Ext. B3 series are the demand notice of the 5th opposite party to the complainant showing the balance outstanding amount. Ext. B4 is the notice of 5th opposite party to the Head of the Department of the surety to stop the recovery from the salary of the surety since the matter is pending before the District Collector. Ext. B5 series are the details of remittance received by the 5th opposite party through the salary deduction from the surety. Ext. B6 is the details of the schedule of A/c showing the balance amount. Ext.B7 series are the extract of detailed schedule of A/c in respect of the complainant till 17.01.09. It shows the details of remittance and the details of the balance outstanding in the loan account of the complainant. It comes to Rs. 2,31,516.08 an on 17.01.09. 6. On a perusal of the entire matter of this case, it can be seen that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 1,14,472/- (Rupees One lakh fourteen thousand four hundred and seventy two only) from the 5th opposite party on 27.07.1998 after executing the necessary agreements along with the sureties. As per the agreement, the complainant and the surety are jointly entitled to remit the loan amount with interest in time. Since there is violation of Agreements in repayment of loan amount within in stipulated time by the complainant, the 5th opposite party had taken steps to recover the amounts from the surety by way of salary deduction and payments from the month of August 2000/- up to December 2008. Ext. B2, B3 documents shows that 5th opposite party had given ample chances to the complainant to settle the Loan A/c, after included the matter in the Adalath. In Ext. B3 it was clearly stated that in case any default to close the loan/ A/c the matter will be referred to the Revenue Recovery steps, for the collection of the entire amount. But the complainant had not turned up to settle the matter. Since the recovery from the salary deductions of sureties was not at all sufficient, the 5th opposite party sent to file to the Revenue Recovery, for the realization of the balance loan amount in the A/c of the complainant and the sureties. The complainant’s contentions regarding the limitation question cannot be accepted, since the 5th opposite party started recovery proceedings from the surety and payments from the year 2000 onwards. All the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite parties, have no locus standi and it cannot be accepted as a valid ground to default in repayment of the Loan amount. The complainant and the sureties are jointly bound to remit the outstanding loan amount to the 5th opposite party in time. Any kind of deviation from the Agreement in repayment will be treated as violation of term and conditions of Agreement by the complainant and sureties. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the strong view that the contentions raised by the 5th opposite party against the complainant will have to be treated as genuine. The allegations raised by the complainant after defaulting the repayment of loan, are with out any bonafides. In this case, the complainant is raised unnecessary allegations against the 5th opposite party, by stating limitation question. The complaint and sureties are fully bound to repay the entire balance outstanding loan amount in their name. The action taken by the 5th opposite party by way of Revenue Recovery steps are within the limit of legal steps. So the complainant and sureties are bound to remit the balance amount payable to the 5th opposite party. In this respect we are of the view that the complaint has no merit and it is to be dismissed The interim stay already granted by this Forum, against the recovery step of 5th opposite party, are hereby stands cancelled. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October 2009. Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW 1 - V.V. Antony (Witness) Ext. A1 - Demand Notice Ext. A2 - Beneficiary Loan Card Evidence of the opposite parties:- Ext. B1 - Receipts Ext. B2 - Demand Notice No. Pc/Alpy. 7/98 Ext. B3 - Demand Notice Ext. B4 - Letter dtd. 29.12.08 Ext. B5 - Details of remittance Ext. B6 - Details of schedule of Account Ext. B7 - Detailed schedule of Account // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F. Typed by:- vo/- Compared by:- | 
