Kerala

StateCommission

A/09/392

Kottayam Development Authority - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.V.Chakrapani - Opp.Party(s)

S.Laila

28 Jul 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/09/392
(Arisen out of Order Dated 20/03/2009 in Case No. Cc 83/08 of District Kottayam)
1. Kottayam Development AuthorityKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. T.V.ChakrapaniKerala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
PRESENT :

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 392/09

JUDGMENT DATED: 28.7.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

1. Kottayam Development Authority,   :APPELLANTS

    Rep. by the Secretary,

    Kottayam Municipality,

    Kottayam.

 

( By Adv.S.Laila  )

 

        Vs.

 

T.V.Chakrapani,                                          : RESPONDENT

Arupathichira House,

Karapuzha, Kottayam.

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

 

          The appellant is the opposite party in CC.83/08 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The appellant is under orders to  return the title deed of the property mortgaged   and to drop all further proceedings with respect to the loan given to the complainant.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that  he took a housing loan from the Kottayam Development Authority by pledging his property on May 1987 vide loan No.L.61  of  an amount of Rs.11,500/-.  He remitted an amount of Rs.7000/- in twenty three instalments till 11.10.96 in the office of the opposite party  through the Village Office.  The balance could not be remitted because the opposite party closed down the office without informing the petitioner.  He filed present complaint as he received a notice on 21.7.07 from the Secretary of Kottayam Municipality.  It is also mentioned that he came to know a news item in malayala manorama daily on 25.5.07 that the Government decided to write off the above loans.

          3. In the version and additional version filed  by the opposite parties it is denied that the office of the Kottayam Development Authority was closed down.  It is stated that  it is after giving wide publicity that the Kottayam Development Authority was wound up by the Government and the assets and liabilities of Kottayam Development Authority have been transferred to Kottayam Municipality.  Hence Kottayam Municipality is the successor of earstwhile Kottayam Development Authority.  It is pointed out that as per the terms of the loan the amount of loan availed ie Rs.11500/- and the same has to be repaid in168 instalments at the rate of Rs.118/- from May 1987 and the  above loan amount will be fully repaid  on May, 2001.  The complainant has paid the instalments only upto August 1987.  The instalment dues from September 1987  was in arrears.  Hence notice was issued on 19.9.88 and 20.12. 89.   Revenue recovery proceedings was initiated and accordingly the amount due till October 1996 amounting to Rs.7,088/- was paid by the complainant.   The complainant has defaulted 108 instalments.  The Government has permitted the borrowers to clear off the liability in lumpsum by excluding the penal interest.  The complainant  has not made use of the above facility.  The complainant approached the District Collector for writing off the loan and the same application was dismissed. As on 31.9.08 the amount of Rs.47668/- is due  to the  Municipality.

                    4. Although notice was served the respondent/ complainant he remained absent before this Commission.

          5. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts. A1 series and  A2 and B1 to B3.

          6. We find that the Forum has disposed of the matter by cryptic order stating that opposite parties did not inform the complainant about the winding up of the Kottayam Development Authority and that it was the reason for the defaults committed by the complainant and that hence there is deficiency in service and hence the entire matter to be treated as closed and title deed returned.  We find the order is totally erroneous.  Ext.A1 series was 23 receipts are with respects to the payments made in the village office which would be with respect to the revenue recovery proceedings.  The contention that the complainant was not aware of the winding up of the Kottayam Development Authority cannot be believed, the complainant being  a local man.  The above is hardly a sufficient reason to treat the entire outstanding loan amount as written off. The alleged deficiency in service stands not established.  We find that the complainant is not entitled for any relief on the alleged ground of deficiency in service. 

          7. In the result the order of the Forum is set aside.  The appeal is allowed.

          Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order urgently.

 

 

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

ps

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 28 July 2010

[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]PRESIDENT