BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Monday the 26th day of July , 2010
C.C.No 01/10
Between:
P.Ranga Muni Reddy, S/o P.Narayana Reddy,Retired Pharmacist Grade-II, Silver Jubilee Government College(A),
R/o. H.No.87/188, Kamala Nagar, B.Camp Last, Kurnool.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1 The Commissioner for Collegiate Education,
Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.
- The Principal, Silver Jubilee Government College(A),Accredited with A Grade by NAAC,
Kurnool, Kurnool District.
…Opposite ParTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. Ch.Joga Rao, Advocate, for complainant , and Smt. D.S.Sai leela , Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.01/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OP’s
(i) to obtain and issue “Clearance Certificate” to the complainant and in consequence thereof to execute the Deed of Reconveyance of the Mortgaged Property in favour of complainant with immediate effect.
(ii) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him
(ii) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the lengthy correspondence made,
(iii) a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards filing expenses for filing this complainant
(iv) and also to do such other and further relief’s this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper and circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- While the complainant was working as a Pharmacist in Silver Jubilee College, Kurnool , he was sanctioned House Building advance of Rs.1,75,000/- for the construction of the house at Kurnool . The complainant executed a registered Mortgage Deed infavour of the Government represented by the 1st OP. After availing loan the complainant repaid the entire loan amount from 11/1997 to 10/2007. OP.No.2 addressed a letter to OP.No.1 informing that entire principal amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was collected from the complainant . Subsequently the interest amount of Rs.60,000/- was also recovered form 11/2007 to 06/2008. OP.No.2 again addressed a letter stating that complainant paid the entire amount and requested to issue clearance certificate . Inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant the clearance certificate was not obtained and issued and reconveyance of mortgage property was not executed . The complainant also got issued legal notice to OP.No.1 but there was no response from OP.No.1. The complainant suffered mental agony due to the inaction of the Ops . There is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.2 filed written version and the same is adopted by OP.No.1. It is stated in the written version that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of the Act. There is no deficiency of service by the Ops. The facility of housing loan extended to the complainant while he was in service was not for consideration. If the complainant has any grievance he can appeal to the Government . The forum has no jurisdiction . The complaint is liable to be dismissed .
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A9 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of Ops no documents are marked and sworn affidavit of OPs is filed.
5. Both parties filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether the complainant is a consumer as defined U/S 2 (1) d (ii) of the C.P. Act.
(ii) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs ?
(iii) whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(iv) To what relief?
7. Point 1& 3:- It is the case of the complainant that while he was working as a Pharmacist in OP.No.2 college , he availed house building advance of Rs. Rs.1,75,000/- and executed the original of Ex.A2 mortgage dated 14-11-1996 . The complainant availed house building advance of Rs. Rs.1,75,000/- and executed the original of Ex.A2 mortgage dated 14-11-1996 is not under dispute. It is the case of the complainant that the principal amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was recovered from his salary from 11-1997 to 10/2007 and that interest amount of Rs.60,000/- was recovered from 11/2007 to 6/2008 . Ex.A3 is the letter dated 15-11-2007 addressed by OP.No.2 to OP.No.1 where in it is stated that the entire principal amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was recovered from the pay bills of the complainant from 11/1997 to 10/2007 . Ex.A4 is another letter dated 30-09-2008 addressed by OP.No.2 to oP.NO.1 . It is stated in Ex.A4 that the complainant paid the entire interest amount of Rs.60,000/- . The Ops are not disputing the recovery of principle amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and interest of Rs.60,.000/- . The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that the entire principle amount and interest was recovered from his salary . Admittedly the complainant was not given clearance certificate by the Ops though entire amount due under the mortgage deed was recovered from the salary of the complainant .
8. It is the case of the Ops that the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of the Act and that present complaint is not maintainable . It is further case of the Ops that the complainant was extended facility of housing loan and it was not for consideration. Sec 2 (1) d (ii) of the Act provides meaning of the consumer. It says that consumer is one who hires or avails any service for consideration. In the present case the loan was given to the complainant for interest. It was not a free loan . As seen from Ex.A2 it is very clear that the loan was granted to the complainant with interest at 8.5% till the amount is repaid. Ex.A4 letter addressed by the OP.No. 2 to OP.No.1 reveals that an amount of Rs.60,000/- was recovered from the pay bills of the complainant towards interest. Therefore the contention of Ops that there was no consideration for extending the facility to the complainant can not be accepted. The complainant availed the service of the Government for consideration . Therefore the complainant is a consumer as defined in Sec. 2 (1) d (ii) of the Act.
9. It is also case of the Ops that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and that the complaint is not maintainable . Admittedly the complainant availed loan of Rs.1,75,000/- from the Government .The said loan was repayable with interest at 8.5% . An amount of Rs.60,000/- was recovered from the complainant towards interest . After recovery of the entire loan amount the OP.No.1 is bound to obtain and issue clearance certificate and execute deed of reconveyance of the property infavour of the complainant. The complainant got issued a legal notice to OP.No.1 Ex.A5 dated 13-04-2009 demanding to issue clearance certificate and execute mortgage of reconveyance of the mortgaged property. OP.No.1 received the said legal notice. Ex.A7 is the postal acknowledgment. Having received the notice OP.No.1 did not choose to issue clearance certificate to the complainant. OP.No.1 also not executed the deed of reconveyance of mortgage property infavour of the complainant . In a decision reported in I (2009) CPJ 123 it was held by the National Commission that non-return of pledged documents by bank after repayment of loan amounts to deficiency of service on part of bank and that the complainant is entitled to approach consumer forum . In the present case also the OP.No.1 failed to issue clearance certificate and execute reconveyance deed infavour of the complainant . It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP.No.1. In a decision reported in AIR 1994 SC 787 it was held that A Government or semi–Government body or a local authority is as much amenable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service. Merely because the Ops are Government servants it can not be said that they are not be amenable to the provisions of the Act. In the present case there is negligence on the part of OP.No.1 in not issuing clearance certificate to the complainant . OP.No.1 is also bound to execute reconvenaynce deed infavour of the complainant . It is the OP.No.1 who is bound to obtain and issue clearance certificate to the complainant . There is no liability of what so ever on the part of the OP.No.2. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.1.
9. Point No:4:- In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing OP.No.1 to issue clearance certificate to the complainant and also to execute deed of reonveycance of mortgaged property infavour of the complainant at his expenses within two months from the date of the order. The complaint against OP.No.2 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case both parties to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 26th day of July , 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Office copy of Letter from OP1 to Sub-Register, Kurnool.dt.30-11-1996
Ex.A2. Office copy of Mortgage deed dt.14-11-1996.
Ex.A3. Photo copy of Letter form OP2 to OP1 dt.15-11-2007.
Ex.A4. Photo copy of Letter form OP2 to OP1 dt.30-09-2008.
Ex.A5. Office copy of legal Notice dt.13-04-2009.
Ex.A6. Postal Receipt.
Ex.A7. Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.A8. Photo copy of Memo of OP1 dt.25-04-2009.
Ex.A9. Office copy of letter from OP2 to OP1 dt.20-05-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on:
