1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that she being the member of SD Women’s HBCS Ltd. availed loan of Rs.90, 000/- vide agreement No.6317 dt.21.1.1997 from Semiliguda Branch by executing mortgage deed with Ops and out of sanctioned loan, the Ops retained Rs.10, 000/- towards Security Deposit. It is submitted that the complainant was depositing the loan dues as per terms and conditions of the Ops and had deposited Rs.1, 92,787/- till 30.10.2010 which is more than double the loan amount but till date in spite of repeated requests the Ops are neither cancelling the mortgage deed nor issuing No Due Certificate (NDC) in favour of the complainant. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to cancel the mortgage deed, issue NDC and to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the loan ofRs.90, 000/- obtained by the complainant for construction of house to be repaid in 36 half yearly installments of Rs.2500/- with interest @ 15.30% and in default @ 15.3% installment. It is contended that the complainant did not pay the loan installments regularly and as on 03.11.14 a sum of Rs.95, 765/- after deduction of share capital of Rs.9000/- is loan dues lying outstanding against the complainant. As the loan amount was not cleared by the complainant, mortgage deed could not be cancelled and NDC could not be issued in her favour. The Ops also contended that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops and as such she is not entitled for any relief. Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of her case. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the material available on record.
4. While deciding the preliminary issue raised by the Ops that the complainant is not their consumer it can be said that and it has been severally held by higher Forums that the member of a Co-operative Society is a consumer of that society and hence it can be safely held that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops and her case is maintainable in the Forum for adjudication.
5. In this case, the loan of Rs.90, 000/- advanced by the Ops after execution of mortgage dt.25.1.1997 and deduction of share capital of Rs.9000/- from the loan amount and repayment towards loan of Rs.1, 92,787/- by the complainant as on 31.10.2010 are all admitted facts. The case of the complainant is that she has paid all the loan dues of the Ops as on 31.10.2010 but in spite of repeated requests the Ops are not cancelling the mortgage deed and also not issuing NDC in her favour. The Ops in their counter admitted about payment of Rs.1, 92,787/- by the complainant and the same fact has been reflected in the loan ledger of the complainant the copy of which is available on record. Perused the copy of loan ledger in which it is stated that the complainant has paid Rs.1, 92, 787/- as on 31.10.2010. It is further revealed that as on 03.11.2014 the loan outstanding against the complainant is Ra.1, 04,765/- and after adjustment of share capital of Rs.9000/-, the loan outstanding comes to Rs.95, 765/- as on 03.11.2014. The learned counsel for the Ops submitted that as the complainant has not cleared her loan dues, they are not in a position to cancel the mortgage deed and also not able to issue NDC.
6. This being the position of loan account of the complainant, the Forum insisted the Ops to go for one time settlement with the complainant so that the loan accounts can be easily liquidated but the learned A/R for the Ops submitted that there is no such provision of their Society.
7. From the above facts and circumstances, it was ascertained that the complainant has not cleared her loan dues and hence we find no merit in her case. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant. No orders as to costs.
(to dict.
