BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 306/2001 Filed on 24.07.2001

Dated : 16.03.2009

Complainant:

P. Kumaran, S/o Kunjiraman, Peringayil Veedu, Naikatti P.O, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanadu-673 592.

(By adv. R. Raghavan Pillai)

Opposite party:

Managing Director, Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation, T.C 16/351, Cotton Hill, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram – 14.

(By adv. K. Sudheesa Chandran)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18.03.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 16.02.2009, the Forum on 16.03.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had applied for a loan under self employment scheme for purchasing a tourist taxi car in the year 1995, that the same was sanctioned by the opposite party on 22.06.1995, that though complainant had obtained a quotation for Rs. 2,77,447, it rose to Rs. 2,85,726/- as per the quotation of the opposite party, that without considering the D.D amount of Rs. 15,000/- already remitted by the complainant opposite party had assessed the loan amount, that opposite party purchased 19 cars by which opposite party might have received considerable amount of commission which was not shared with the complainant, that opposite party did not inform the complainant about the monthly instalment amount, that a notice dated 28.10.1995 was served to the complainant informing him of 48 monthly instalments of Rs. 7,125/- each, while in another notice dated 27.11.1995 served to the complainant, it was mentioned that the monthly instalment was Rs. 7,250/- and that complainant requested the opposite party to reduce the instalment amount by extending the period of instalment. Opposite party did not heed to the request of the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to return the excess amount collected by the opposite party from the complainant and to pay compensation and costs.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation is a Govt. of Kerala undertaking formed in the year 1995 with the object of the development of backward communities in Kerala, that it is under the directions and norms of NBCFDC and NMDFC of the Central Government, that the complainant applied for a loan under self employment scheme for purchasing a tourist taxi on 10.04.1995, that the loan was sanctioned to him and complainant executed relevant documents on 22.06.1995, that the loan amount was the purchase price of the car and that was Rs. 2,85,726/-, that as per the norms and rules, the beneficiaries contribution was Rs. 15,000/- and balance amount of Rs. 2,70,726/- is to be repaid in 48 equal monthly instalments and that complainant was a chronic defaulter for the repayment of the loan. On 09.01.1999 opposite party issued certain directions in favour of the loanees and as per the liberalised directions the loanees could get exemption of penal interest in case they were remitting the entire arrears on or before 31.03.1999. Complainant failed to clear the arrears in time and at last opposite party proceeded against the complainant under the due process of law by way of revenue recovery. On 18.04.2000 complainant applied for a No Objection Certificate after remitting the dues and on the same day opposite party issued NOC and despatched the same to the RTO, Kalpatta on 20.04.2000. There is no latches or negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether opposite party has collected excess amount from the complainant?

2. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Reliefs and costs.

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P17 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed affidavit and Exts. D1 to D11 were marked.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant applied for a loan under self employment scheme for purchasing a tourist taxi car on 19.04.1995 and the same was sanctioned by the opposite party on 22.06.1995. It has been the case of the complainant that though complainant had obtained a quotation for Rs. 2,77,447/-, it rose to Rs. 2,85,726/- as per the quotation of the opposite party, that without considering the D.D amount of Rs. 15,000/- already remitted by the complainant, opposite party had assessed the loan amount, that opposite party purchased 19 cars by which opposite party might have received a considerable amount of commission which was not shared with the complainant, that opposite party did not inform the complainant about the monthly instalment amount, that a notice dated 28.10.1995 was served to the complainant informing him of 48 monthly instalments of Rs. 7,125/- each, while in another notice dated 27.11.1995 served to the complainant, it was mentioned that the monthly instalment was Rs. 7,250/-, that complainant requested the opposite party to reduce the instalment amount by extending the period of instalment and that opposite party did not heed to the request. It has also been the case of the complainant that complainant was managed to remit 8 instalments only due to engine work in the vehicle, that the vehicles given to the opposite party were defective, that thereafter complainant remitted Rs. 43,500/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively that finally opposite party initiated RR Proceedings for Rs. 3,01,510/- and finally complainant remitted the entire amount on 17.04.2001. It has been rebutted by the opposite party by submitting that as per the norms and rules, beneficiaries contribution is Rs. 15,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 2,70,726/- is to be repaid in 48 equal instalment, that the date of remittance of the 1^st instalment was on 13.11.1995 which is intimated to the complainant on 10.11.1995, that complainant was aware about the repayment at the time of personal interview of the beneficiary that the complainant was a chronic defaulter for the repayment of the loan, that even after sufficient time provided for repayment of the loan, complainant failed to clear the arrears, that as a last resort opposite party proceeded against the complainant under due process of law and that on 18.04.2000 the complainant applied for no objection certificate after remitting the dues and on the same day opposite party issued NOC and despatched the same to the RTO, Kalpatta on 20.04.2000 and on 05.12.2000 complainant received the NOC from the opposite party. Ext. D1 is the copy of the application for loan under self employment scheme. Ext. P1 is the letter dated 16.05.1995 issued to the complainant in response to the loan application dated 10.04.1995. Ext. P2 is the copy of proforma invoice dated 20.06.1995 from Marikar Motors Ltd. Showing the price of the car of Rs. 2,77,447/-. In Ext. P2 it is further printed in small letter that prices and specifications are subject to change without notice. Ext. P3 is the copy of the price delivery inspection of Ambassador Nova. Ext. P4 is the copy of certificate of Registration in the name P. Kumaran. Ext. P5 is the notice dated 28.10.1995 issued by opposite party to the complainant informing him of the date of 1^st instalment. Ext. P6 is the notice dated 10.11.1995 issued by the opposite party. Ext. P7 is the copy of another letter dated 27.11.1995 issued by the opposite party to the complainant informing him of the instalment amount of Rs. 7250/- instead of Rs. 7,125/- and of number of instalments fixed at 48 instead of 60. Ext. P8 is the copy of another letter dated 20.09.1999 by the opposite party informing the complainant of the violation of agreement for the loan. Ext. P9 is the copy of the letter dated 17.04.2001 from Village officer to the opposite party showing the amount of remittance and collection charges. Ext. P10 is the copy of the application sent by the complainant to opposite party dated nil. Ext. P11 is the copy of the letter dated 11.08.2000 from the Secretary, State Transport Authority to the complainant to produce the NOC from financier. Ext. P12 is another notice dated 01.12.2000 issued by the Kerala State Transport Authority. Ext. P13 is the copy of the letter from opposite party to the complainant. Exts. P14(a) to (l) are receipts regarding the remittance of amounts to opposite party. Exts. P14 (m) to P17 are the receipts regarding the remittance of amounts issued by the Village Officer. Ext. D4 is the copy of personal loan ledger xxx lending policy wherein the amounts shown in Exts. P14(a) to (m) and P15 to P17 are shown as remittance. Ext. D7 is the letter regarding the Revenue Recover issued by the Village Officer, Kuppam to the opposite party. In the said Ext. D7, the amount remitted, date of remittance and collection charge etc. are shown. On going through Exts. P14(a) to (m) and P15 to P17 and Ext. D4 personal loan ledger, we find the amounts remitted by the complainant at different dates are seen included in the loan ledger and no abnormality is seen in the account loan register, the action of the opposite party to realise the amount from the complainant by way of revenue recovery is not against law. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext.D4 the said loan was sanctioned in the year 1995 at 11% interest, and complainant had committed default in repayment of loan, which resulted in collection of penal interest at 2.5% as per the terms of the loan, and after closing the loan, opposite party issued no objection certificate and despatched the same to the RTO, Kalpatta on 20.04.2000. In the light of evidence adduced, we find no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16^th March 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 306/2001

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of letter No. 07/95 dated 16.05.1995 received from opposite party.

P2 - Copy of proforma invoice showing the value of vehicle from Marikar Motors, Kozhikode.

P3 - Copy of dealers' prescribed pre-delivery inspection.

P4 - Copy of certificate of registration pages 2 to 9.

P5 - Copy of notice dated 28.10.95 from opposite party.

P6 - Copy of notice dated 10.11.95 from opposite party.

P7 - Copy of notice dated 27.11.95 from opposite party.

P8 - Copy of letter dated 20.09.1999.

P9 - Copy of RR particulars from village officer dated 17.04.01.

P10 - Copy of letter to opposite party by the complainant.

P11 - Copy of letter dated 11.08.2000 issued to the complainant by the Secretary, State Transport Authority.

P12 - Copy of tourist permit from 05.12.2000 to 18.08.2005.

P13 - Copy of letter dated 22.10.2002.

P14(a)

to (m) - Copy of receipts regarding remittance of amount to opposite party.

P15 - Copy of tax receipt (original) dated 30.11.2000.

P16 - Copy of tax receipt (original) dated 30.03.2001.

P17 - Copy of tax receipt (original) dated 17.04.2001.

III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of filled application for self employment loan scheme dated 10.04.2009.

D2 - Copy of notice dated 28.10.1995.

D3 - Copy of Notice dated 10.11.1995.

D4 - Copy of personal loan ledger-old lending policy dated 30.06.95.

D5 - Letter dated 30.06.2001 sent to opposite party by the complainant.

D6

(12Nos.) - Copy of letter dated 21.06.1996 issued to complainant.

D7 - Letter No. M-75/01 dated 17.04.2001.

D8 - Letter dated 15.11.2000 addressed to Accounts Officer, KSBCDC.

D9 - Letter dated 18.11.2000 addressed to RTO, Kalpetta.

D10 - Letter dated 05.12.2000 addressed to Accounts Manager, KSBCDC.

D11 - Letter dated 05.12.2000 addressed to RTO, Kalpetta, by opposite party.

PRESIDENT