IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF MAY , 2013
Present: Smt. G.Vasanthakumari,President
Adv.Ravisusha, Member
IA.305/12
IN
CC.NO. 235/2012
Smt. Remani,
W/o Mangalanandan,
Cheriyathu Veedu,
Perumon Padinjatte Cherry,
Perumon P.O,
Perinadu, Kollam- Complainant
(By Adv. Electron.A, Kollam)
V/S
The Manager,
Kerala State Housing Board,
Kollam Division Office,
Kollam.
(By Adv.S.G.Jayan,Kollam)
ORDER
This IA has been put in by the opposite party praying to hear the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue alleging that the complaint is not maintainable, that the opposite party is not served with notice under section 139 before the filing of the complaint, that the complaint filed against the R.R.proceedings is barred U/S72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the complaint is only to be dismissed.
It is opposed on the ground that the IA is not maintainable, that the complaint is to get the statement of accounts, that she has every right to verify the statement of accounts, that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is maintainable and the IA is only to be dismissed.
The only point that arises for consideration is :-
Whether the IA is allowable or not ?
The Point:- Admittedly the complainant had availed a housing loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposite party and remitted only a portion of the amount and the balance is in arrears. According to the complainant she availed the loan in 1997 and remitted Rs. 56000/- and to verify the balance she requested for statement of accounts but the Board has not issued the
(3)
same and hence there is deficiency in service which resulted in the filing of the complaint. But according to the opposite party, the complainant availed the loan by executing mortgage deed No. 5799/98 dated 15-12-1998 of SRO Kundara and the amount was disbursed by three instalments dated 26-02-99,08-09-99 and 19-01-00 and she had remitted Rs.81021/- (Rs. 55211/- during the loan period and Rs. 25810/- after intimation of R.R. Proceedings ) and is ready to issue statement of accounts on demand and the complaint is not maintainable. It is true that the complainant has not produced even a scrap of paper to substantiate that she has applied for the copy of statement of accounts and the OP denied the same. So also mandatory notice U/S 139 of The Kerala State Housing Board Act 1971 not served on the Board before filing this complaint. More over complainant has filed this complaint suppressing the material fact that R.R. proceedings already initiated to recover the arrears. According to the learned consel appearing for the OP letter dated 18-06-12 mentioned in the complaint is intimating one time settlement and not as stated in the complaint. Even on going through the allegations in the complaint and contentions in the version we can see that she has filed this complaint suppressing material facts and she has come before the forum with most
(4)
unclean hands. The Learned counsel appearing for the complainant after filing a vague objection to the IA has not even cared to argue the matter. Her alleged signature in the objection not tallys with her admitted signature in the complaint, Vakalath etc. So also the alleged cause of action is that she has demanded for copy of statement of accounts but the OP has not issued the same. As we have already mentioned there is no evidence to substantiate the same. Moreover she can very well obtain the same by filing an application under Right to Information Act. She has no case that she has approached on that line but not obtained. OP is ready and willing always to issue the same on demand. Further it is well settled that after initiating R.R. Proceedings complaint under CP Act is not maintainable. Following the above discussion we have no hesitation to safely conclude that the complaint is not maintainable.
In the result, the IA is allowed.
Dated this the 7th day of May, 2013.
G. VASANTHAKUMARI
Adv.RAVI SUSHA
