By Jayasree Kallat, Member: The complainant approached the opposite party for the purpose of availing a loan for the construction of his house. After observing all formalities complainant obtained first instalment of loan of Rs.75000/- on 9-1-04. On 11-2-04 second instalment of Rs.50000/- , and 3rd instalment of Rs.25000/- on 1-3-04 was received by the complainant. The complainant obtained another loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from his employer and paid this Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loan taken from opposite party. The complainant had to pay only balance of Rs.50000/- to the opposite party in the loan account. As the complainant could not finish the construction of the house with the loan already taken, complainant approached opposite party for further financial assistance. Opposite party had promised to give a fresh loan to the complainant, if the complainant paid the balance payable amount in the first loan taken from opposite party. Believing the opposite party complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.50000/- and closed the loan of opposite party. Opposite party promised to give fresh loan to the complainant after getting intimation from Ernakulam Office. The complainant had already paid Rs.7500/- to the opposite party for purchasing shares. Even though complainant had submitted fresh application form duly filled on 2-6-05 to the opposite party, complainant waited for about two months to get a reply from opposite party. After a long delay opposite party refused to sanction the loan. Complainant sustained huge loss, mentally and physically due to the malafide act of the opposite party. Opposite party was negligent and deficient in service. Thus this petition is filed to get back Rs.7500/- which he had paid to the opposite party to take share along with compensation and cost. Opposite party filed a version denying all the allegation and averments made in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party admits that opposite party sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 29-11-03. Complainant had availed Rs.1,00,000/- on 9-1-04, Rs.50,000/- on 11-12-04 and Rs.25000/- on 7-3-04. Loan was for 15 years to be repaid in monthly instalment of Rs.875/- towards the principal amount. The loan was granted by the Housing Federation. The complainant had repaid Rs.1,00,000/- on 17-4-04 and repaid balance amount on 4-6-05. All the documents and title deeds relating to the loan was returned on 9-7-05. Later on, the complainant approached the opposite party for a fresh loan. Opposite party was willing to give fresh loan provided the building license issued by the local self Government is renewed. Since the complainant had not approached the opposite party with the fresh license, opposite party was not able to sanction the fresh loan. Opposite party denies that the complainant approached the opposite party several times for the purpose of fresh loan. Opposite party also denies that complainant had sustained huge loss, mental and physical. Oppositeparty admits that the complainant had paid Rs.7500/- as value of shares. This amount will be refunded only after three years as per Sec.24 of the Co-Operative Societies Act 1969. the opposite party is prepared to refund the share amount provided the complainant submit application for refund of shares. Complainant is not entitled for any other compensation as there was no deficiency in service from the opposite party. This complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs to the opposite party. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the petition? PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 to A9 were marked on complainant’s side. RW1 was examined on opposite party’s side. The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party. Complainant had taken a share of Rs.7500/- from the opposite party in order to get a loan from opposite party. As the complainant found that he could not finish the construction of the house for the sanctioned amount he approached the opposite party. As per the direction of the opposite party he had closed the previous loan in order to apply for a fresh loan. Complainant had submitted fresh application form. After a delay of two months opposite party refused to sanction the loan. Here we have to look into the matter that whether the action of opposite party was negligent and deficient in service. RW1 has given evidence on behalf of the opposite party. RW1 has stated in his deposition Page-2 The definite version of opposite party is that as the complainant did not approach the opposite party with a fresh building license opposite party was not in a position to sanction the fresh loan. RW1 in Page-2 has also deposed that “ Second application form . The complainant alleges that he got the documents returned after a long delay. Opposite party explains that documents were returned after one month because after closing the loan it was to be informed to their Head Office in Ernakulam and the documents had to be returned from the Ernakulam Office. Hence there was no delay, negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Another point raised by the complainant is that he had paid Rs.7500/- to the opposite party taking shares in opposite party. Opposite party has admitted that they are willing to pay back the amount to the complainant. Considering all the facts the Forum has come to the conclusion that the stand taken by the opposite party was correct. According to RW1 documents were returned to the complainant n 9-7-05 because the documents were to be returned from Head Office of House Construction Society in Ernakulam. As the plan and building license time had lapsed the complainant had to renew the license. Opposite party was willing to sanction the loan if the complainant had submitted a fresh renewed plan and building license. Which the complainant did not comply. Hence the opposite party could not sanction fresh loan. With regard to the share of the complainant we are of the opinion that he is entitled to get back the amount as per the Rules of the House Construction Society. In the result the petition is partly allowed directing the opposite party to release the share amount of the complainant according to the rules of the House Construction Society. Pronounced in the open court this the 11th day of January 2010. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant. A1. Receipt dt. 2-6-05. A2. Copy of Lawyer notice dt.12-1-07. A3. Photocopy of Plan. A4. Photocopy of Possession Certificate dt. 13-5-05. A5. Photocopy of Encumbrance certificate. A6. Photocopy of Specification and Report of the proposed building. A7. Photocopy of Building permit from Kozhikode Corporation. A8. Photocopy of Certificate from the Village Officer, Panniyankara dt. 27-5-05. A9. Photocopy of Regd. Lawyer notice dt. 1-1-2007. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil. Witness examined for the complainant. PW1. Sethumadhavan (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party. RW1. Kishan chand, Karthika, Balan.K. Nair Road, Calicut-6. Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
......................G Yadunadhan
......................Jayasree Kallat
......................L Jyothikumar | | 
