IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 06th day of September, 2021
Filed on 30.03.2019
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholy P.R.BA, LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.85/2019
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Shiyad.A 1. The Managing Director
S/o Ahammad The Kerala State Financial
Kulathil Veedu Enterprises(KSFE) Ltd
Civil Station Ward Bhadaratha, P.B.No.510
Alappuzha Museum Road, Trichur
(Adv. Sri. K.T.Anishmon) Pin-6880020
2. The Branch Manager
KSFE Loan Unit(126)
Alappuzha, Kumaranasan Smaraka Building
Near District Court, Alappuzha
(Adv. Sri. Francis Xavier for
Ops 1 &2)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1. Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
1) Complainant is working as a senior clerk at Collectorate Alappuzha. On 21/2/2012 complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the 2nd opposite party which is a branch of 1st opposite party as loan number NHFS721. He was regularly paying EMI at the rate of Rs. 5635/-. On 19/9/2016 complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,49,983/- as per Receipt No. 41203 and closed the loan. On 28/9/2016 2nd opposite party issued a loan closing letter.
2) While he was working as a Senior Clerk at Taluk office, Perinthalmanna on 23/4/2018 a letter was sent to Tahasildar, Perinthalmanna stating that Rs.67,830/- is pending as loan arrears of the complainant and it is to be deducted at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. Since the complainant informed that the loan was closed recovery was not affected. On enquiry with the 2nd opposite party it was informed that it was a clerical mistake.
3) Thereafter complainant was transferred to collectorate, Alappuzha and is working as senior clerk. On 13/2/2019 deputy collector issued a notice stating that there is a loan arrears and it is to be deducted at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month. Though explanation was given now steps are being taken to deduct the amount.
4) The loan was closed by the complainant. Thereafter notice are being sent for recovery of the amount and it amounts to deficiency of service. Complainant sustained mental agony for which he is entitled for compensation. Hence the complaint is filed to setaside the order of recovery and for Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.
2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
1) The averment that the balance amount to be paid was Rs.3,49,983/- is false. On 22/3/2012 complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- at an interest rate of 10.50 %. It was to be repaid as 180 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.5635/-. Complainant paid 54 instalments till 6/9/2016 and on 19/9/2016 approached to close the loan account. An amount of Rs.3,49,983/- as principle and Rs. 67,800/-(total Rs.4,17,783/-) was due for payment. However at the time of closing the loan the concerned clerk omitted to include the interest amount of Rs.67,800/- and closed the loan by accepting Rs.3,49,983/-. Thereafter on 20/9/2016 the property which was mortgaged was released and on 28/9/2016 a non-liability certificate was issued. The mistake was noticed at the time of yearly audit and the matter was informed to the complainant directly and he agreed to repay the balance amount. However since the amount was not repaid on 17/4/2017 a registered notice was issued and it was returned with an endorsement “not known”. Thereafter on 17/3/2018 another registered notice was issued and it was accepted on 21/3/2018. So far complainant has not issued any reply notice and hence recovery proceedings were initiated.
2) Registered notices were issued since the complainant failed to repay the amount inspite of direct information given to him. The contention that there was an assurance that it was a clerical mistake is false. The Thahasildar, Perinthalmanna informed that complainant was transferred to collectorate, Alappuzha and thereafter recovery proceedings were initiated through the Deputy Collector. Complainant is not entitled for any relief and on the other hand he is liable to pay the interest amount. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as alleged?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order to setaside the order to recover Rs.7000/- per month from the salary of the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties as prayed for?
4. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext. A1 to A5 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 to B5 from side of the opposite parties.
4. Point No.1 to 3:-
1) PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A5. During cross examination Ext.B1 was marked.
2) RW1 is the 2nd opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B2 to B5.
3) PW1, the complainant was working as a senior clerk at Collectorate, Alappuzha. While so on 22/3/2012 he availed a housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the 2nd opposite party as per Ext.B1 agreement. As per the terms and conditions he had to repay the amount at the rate of Rs.5635/- per month and the period of loan was 180 months. He was regularly repaying the EMIs. On 19/9/2016 he approached the 2nd opposite party for closing the loan
account. As per their request he paid an amount of Rs.3,49,983/- and closed the loan. On 28/9/2016 Ext.A1 loan closing letter was issued to him.
4) Later he was transferred to Taluk Office, Perinthalmanna and while so on 23/4/2018 a letter was issued to the Tahasildar, Perinthalmanna by the 2nd opposite party alleging that an amount of Rs. 67,830/- is in arrears in the loan account and it is to be deducted at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per month. However since he gave a letter informing that the entire loan amount was repaid recovery was not affected. Thereafter complainant was transferred to Collectorate, Alappuzha and while so on 13/2/2019 the Deputy Collector informed that 2nd opposite party had issued a requisition to deduct an amount of Rs.7000/- per month being the balance amount of the loan account. According to PW1 he paid the entire balance amount and closed to the loan account and obtained Ext.A1 Loan closing letter on 28/9/2016. He paid the entire amount as requested by the 2nd opposite party and so no amount is due from him. Hence the complaint is filed to set-aside the order to deduct an amount of Rs.7000/- per month from the salary of the complainant. He is also claiming an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental agony sustained to him by the act of the opposite parties.
5) Opposite parties filed a joint version admitting the loan transaction and payment of Rs.3,49,983/-. According to them when the amount was calculated at the time of closing the loan by an inadvertent mistake the interest of Rs.67,800/- was omitted to be collected from the complainant. According to them the total amount due was Rs.4,17,783/- out of which PW1 paid only Rs.3,49,983/- being the principal amount. At the time of audit the mistake was noticed and a registered notice was issued on 17/4/2017. It was returned as addressee “not known”. Thereafter on 17/3/2018 another registered notice was issued and it was accepted by the complainant. Since it was only an inadvertent mistake complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. During cross examination Ext.B1 was marked. The 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B2 to B5 were marked.
6) The fact that PW1 availed a housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- as per Ext.B1 agreement is not in dispute. As per the terms and conditions in Ext.B1 agreement he had to repay the amount as Rs.5640/- EMI. In the version opposite parties admitted that complainant was prompt in repayment and he paid 54 instalments till 6/9/2016. When he closed the loan only Rs.3,49,983/- was collected
instead of Rs.4,17,783/- by a mistake committed by the staff. The interest of Rs.67,800/- was omitted to be collected and recovery proceedings were initiated after issuing notice to PW1. According to PW1 when he approached the 2nd opposite party for closing the loan they informed that the amount due is Rs.3,49,983/-. Opposite parties also admitted the same and according to them the concerned staff omitted to calculate the interest of Rs.67,800/- and collect the same when the loan was closed. Rw1 during cross examination admitted that it was a mistake committed by the concerned staff. However so far they had not initiated any proceedings against said person. RW1 also admitted that complainant closed the account after paying the amount demanded. It was a mistake committed by the concerned person not informing the correct amount including interest.
7) The learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointed out that it was a deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and complainant is not expected to suffer for the same. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party pointed out that it was inadvertent mistake committed by the concerned staff omitting to include the interest and demand the same. As a matter of fact complainant has no dispute that he is liable to pay the interest of Rs.67,800/-. His only contention is that when he approached the 2nd opposite party for closing the account he paid the amount demanded by them and so he is not liable to pay any more amounts. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties pointed out that Sec. 70 of the Indian Contract act is applicable in this case.
Sec. 70 reads as follows:-
“ Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act.
Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such another person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.”
Here in this case as stated earlier complainant has no case that the amount of Rs.67,800/- was not due to the opposite parties. His only case is that at the time when he reached the office to close the loan account he paid Rs. 3,49,983/- as demanded by them and so he is not liable to pay any more amount.
8) From the evidence on record it is pellucid that the mistake was committed by the staff of 2nd opposite party. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant when PW1 was transferred and reached Perinthalmanna, a letter was sent to the Thahasildar to deduct an amount of Rs.7000/- per month from his salary. Thereafter when he was transferred to Collectorate, Alappuzha, again another letter was sent to deduct the amount from his salary. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant direction for recovery is at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month which is even more than the EMI of Rs.5,635/- of the loan. When notices were sent to recover the amount to the employers definitely it will be harassment especially when according to PW1 no amount is due to the 2nd opposite party. However as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd opposite party it was a mistake committed by the staff. RW1 deposed that so far no action was taken against the said person. Since the amount of Rs.67,800/- is legally due to the 2nd opposite party on account of interest of loan no order can be granted to set-aside the recovery proceedings. However since 2nd opposite party had sent notices to the employer of complainant definitely it was a harassment to him. Since according to him an even as per the initial assessment of 2nd opposite party no amount is due to them. Only at the time of audit it was find out that Rs.67,800/- is being interest was not collected. Since mental agony was sustained to the complainant on account of issuance of notices of recovery we are of the opinion that he is entitled for compensation for the same and we are limiting the same to Rs.15,000/-
9) Opposite parties in this case is Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd (KSFE) which is Government of Kerala undertaking. The money involved is public money which cannot be wasted by the negligent act of its staff. In said circumstances the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded as compensation will be credited by the 2nd opposite party in the loan account of PW1 and will take steps to recover the same from the person who was responsible for such an error. These points are found accordingly.
5. Point No.4:-
In the result, complaint is allowed in part.
A) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation from the 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party will credit the amount in the loan account of the complainant and take steps to realize the amount from the person/persons responsible for the same
B) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.3000/- as cost.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 6th day of September, 2021.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Shiyad.AComplainant)
Ext.A1 - Loan closing Letter dtd. 28/9/2016
Ext.A2 - Letter dtd. 23/4/2018
Ext.A3 - Leter dated.26/4/2018
Ext.A4 - Notice dated. 2/2019
Ext.A5 - Copy of Challan did.19/9/2016
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Madhusoodhanan.S (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Loan Agreement
Ext.B2 - Letter dated.16/3/2018
Ext.B3 - Postal Receipt
Ext.B4 - Account Statement
Ext.B5 - unclaimed notice
True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
