SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint seeking issuing of a revised demand notice, stay of execution proceedings, compensation, costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is a worker in the fishing field. On 21.2.2000 she availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- from the first opp.party initially she repaid the loan regularly. The husband of the complainant and her father are the sureties for the loan . Alleging that the complainant has defaulted the repayment of the loan, the first opp.party reported it to opp.party 2 and 3 who attach the property of the sureties and the opp.parties are trying to realize more than double the amount of loan taken by the complainant. No notice of the action taken by the opp.parties was given to the complainant or the sureties. On 25.10.2007 the complainant received a notice from the opp.parties informing her that on 28.12.2007 the property of her sureties will be sold. The property of the sureties are under attachment by Government for realization of sale tax arrears which was informed to the opp.parties. However they proceeded with the matter and auctioned the property and sale was confirmed in the name of a person. The person who purchased the property in auction is attempting to transfer the property in his name. The statement of account was not furnished to the complainant by the opp.parties and the interest and arrears worked out by the opp.party is not correct. Though the complainant requested the opp.parties to correct the accounts and allow the benefit under the One Time Settlement, the opp.parties did not do anything in this regard. Hence the complaint. Opp.parties filed a joint version contending, as follows: The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The averments contained in para 1of the complaint are correct and the averments in para 2 are partially correct. The complainant had repaid only Rs.2100/- towards the loan amount. The loan amount was to be repaid in full in 36 instalments before 23.3.2003 with 18% interest and 3% penal interest if the amount is not paid within time. On the default being committed by the complainant, the first opp.party reported only the true facts to the other opp.parties and the properties of the sureties of the complainant were attached as per law. The allegation that the opp.parties are trying to obtain more than double the loan amount from the complainant is not correct. When the loan period was over and the complainant failed to repay the loan amount with interest the 1st opp.party sent demand notices and after that the first opp.party filed ARC No.1147/04 on 1.8.2004 before the Arbitrator against the complainant and her sureties. An award was passed by the Arbitrator directing the complainant herein to pay Rs.45256/- with 20% interest including 2 % penal interest and other charges. On 18.2.2007 the bank filed Execution Petition as EP.No.303/07 for Rs.55,056/- The Sale Officer served demand notice through registered post to the complainant herein and her sureties on 21.5.2007 . But they failed to pay the amount . The 2nd demand notice was affixed at their premises on 16.8.07. On 10.8.2007 the properties of the sureties were attached after duly complying with all legal formalities. After that registered notice was served to the complainant and sureties regarding the sale of the properties on 5.11.2007 which was posted to 28.12.2007. As on 28.12.2007 the amount due was Rs.64473/-. The auction was conducted at the head office of the bank. The auction was bid by one Lali for Rs.64,700/- who was the highest bidder. The allegation that the auction was conducted arbitrarily is not true. No illegal acts were done by the opp.parties and no loss or injury were sustained by the complainant. The complainant has no cause of action against the opp. parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 is marked. For the complainant DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D17 are marked POINTS: The fact that the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.25000/- from the 1st opp.party and that the same was defaulted are not in dispute. According to the opp.party Rs.2100/- alone was repaid and though the complainant would contend that she repaid a substantial amount no material was produced to established that aspect. As argued by the opp.parties when default in repayment of loan is committed they have every right to initiate appropriate proceedings for realization of the amount Exts. D1 to D17 produced by the opp.parties shows that Arbitration proceedings have been initiated and the property or the surety of the complainant was sold in execution of the Arbitration award. The contention of the complainant is that notice of arbitration proceedings have not been issued to her by the opp.parties. In the version though it is stated by the opp.parties that demand notice was served by registered post no postal receipt or acknowledgement card was produced. Exts. D5 to D7 are demand notices alleged to have been issued to the complainant through the opp.parties employee. The endorsement on the back side of Exts. D5 to D7 shows nothing as to who has served the notice. In Exts. D5 who has accepted the notice on behalf of the complaint is also not forthcoming. Ext. D6 is the notice alleged to have been served by affixture. In Ext. D6 also there is nothing to show who has effected the affixture. Though two persons are cited as witnesses to the affixture their address or other whereabouts are not known. In Ext. D7 also the person who has affected the service is not shown and these aspects raises serious doubts regarding service of notice. No attempt is also made to examine the person who effected service of D5 to D7 In these circumstances the contention of the complainant that no demand notice has been served on her cannot be ignored and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. The complainant is praying for issuance of a direction to the opp.parties to issue fresh notice after giving all deductions and benefits to her. But it is not specified which are those benefits and deductions. No authority for the same is also produced. The complainant has also no case that she repaid any amount in excess of Rs.2100/- In these circumstances we are not inclined to accept that contention. There is also no evidence to show that the complainant ever applied for statement of accounts and the opp.parties refused the same. As pointed out earlier the deficiency in service is in issuing proper demand notice for which the opp.parties are liable to pay compensation. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opp.party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation which shall be adjusted against the loan amount. The other prayers are disallowed. Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Thulasee bhai List of documents for the complainant P1. – Auction notice List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – Anil Kumar List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – White bond D2. - Surety Deed D3. - Copy of Arbitration Award D4. – Copy of E.P. D5. – Copy of Demand Note D6. – Notice of attachment D7. - Notice dt. 10.9.07 D8. - Copy of Advertisement D9. – Notice dated 28.12.2007 D10. – List of bidders D11. – Extract of Bid Register D12. – Notice dt. 1.3.2008 D13. – Confirmation dt. 31.3.2008 D14. – Notice D15. – Intimation to the Sub Register D16. – Incumbency certificate D17. – Report dt. 28.12.2007. | 
