KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL.611/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 22.1.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The Manager, :APPELLANT Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thaliparamba Branch, Kannur. (By Adv.M.K.Chandramohan Das) vs. T.J.Joseph, : RESPONDENT Thadathil House, Arivilanjapoyilipo, Udayagiri, Thaliparamba, Kannur. (By Adv.M.P.Ashokkumar) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSFE, Thaliparamba in OP.332/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber in the chitty No.2/96 as chital No.33 of the opposite party. Sala of the chitty was 2,00,000/- and the monthly installment is Rs.1500/- and the complainant had remitted 56 instalments. As there was provision for availing loan from the chitty the complainant availed loan of 96,000/- on 13.1.1997. The interest rate on the loan amount was 21%. At the time of availing the loan the complainant and his wife mortgaged their property worth more than rupees 4 lakhs. The chitty was prized on 5.9.99 and the prize amount was Rs.1,40,000/-. The complainant had requested to adjust the chitty amount towards the loan account. Subsequently a lawyer notice dated 9.2.2000 was also sent in this regard. The contention of the opposite party that the mortgaged property has been revalued is meant only to harass the complainant. The subscriber is entitled to get the chitty amount 45 days after the bid. The complainant has paid more than half of the chitty instalments and the paid amount was not adjusted in the loan account. The complainant has to pay exorbitant amount as interest. For the chitty amount no interest was given. Alleging deficiency in service he has claimed a sum of Rs.75000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite party has admitted that at the time of availing loan the complainant had offered security of property which consisted of one acre of land and building and he prized the chitty when he had remitted only 44 instalments and the further liability would work out to Rs.1,12,000/-. The property was valued at Rs.2 lakh on 11.11.96. On 6.3.2000 the complainant and his wife filed an application to accept the above property as security for the chitty amount. The property has to be valued afresh. The opposite party decided to get further security for Rs.56,000/-. The complainant has not remitted interest on loan amount from 1.2.97. It is contended there is no violation of the terms of the variyola and no deficiency in service. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1; Exts.P1 to P4 and R1 to R4. 5. The Forum has depreciated the attitude of the opposite party/appellant that the property would fetch less amount after lapse of time. The loan was taken on 13.1.97. The chitty was auctioned on 5.8.99. The valuation of the property was done for the loan purposes in the year 1996 and it is after about 3 years that the same property was offered a security for the prized chitty amount. According to the opposite party the property by then decreased in value and would not be sufficient for the chitty amount. As rightly pointed out by the forum landed property appreciate in value by the lapse of time. It is one acre property and a building that was offered the security for the loan and the same was valued at Rs. 2,00,000/- in the year 1996. As already mentioned the chitty was auctioned on 5.8.99. The contention of the opposite party/appellant that the property has decreased in value cannot be upheld for any reason. As per the additional statement filed by the appellant the complainant has to remit 33 instalments more in the chitty and he has remitted only Rs.5130/- towards interest on the loan. The loan amount plus interest due would work out more than 2 lakhs and the amount due towards the prized chitty after deducting the instalments to be paid is mentioned Rs.71978/-. Evidently the complainant was not in a position to remit the loan amount as well as the chitty instalments at the same time. Even the amount of compensation ordered to be paid would not enable the complainant to get out of the debt trap. We find that the opposite party/appellant should not have insisted for additional security and refused to adjust the prized chitty amount to the loan account as requested by the complainant. The interest at 21% was due on the loan amount where as the prized chitty amount was not disbursed nor was it credited with any interest. In the circumstances we find that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/appellant. No interference is called for in the order of the Forum to pay compensation and cost. In the result the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
