BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 120/2010 Filed on 21.04.2010
Dated : 31.12.2011
Complainant :
Noorjahan, W/o late Peerumohammed, Vakakavillakedayara Puthen Veedu, Pallichal, Balaramapuram P.O, Neyyattinkara.
(By adv. Jeena Sekhar)
Opposite party :
The Secretary, Kerala Educational Development and Employment Society, 509, Sanjeeth Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. V. Bhuvanendran Nair)
This O.P having been taken as heard on 09.12.2011, the Forum on 31.12.2011 delivered the following :
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
Brief facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant is widow who is having no means of her own. The complainant has applied for a housing loan from the opposite party in the year 1999 by furnishing her original deed comprising of 10 cents and 1½ cents of her property as security. The opposite party has delivered the complainant 300 hollow bricks, 5 packets of cement, 4 pillars and 19 slabs for the construction of the building instead of money. And the cost was fixed as Rs. 21,382/- (i.e; Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 1,382/- as interest) unilaterally by the opposite party for that low quality materials. The complainant has repaid an amount of Rs. 27,000/- between 2000 and 2009 by demand draft. The opposite party has given a notice to the complainant dated 16.05.2001 to pay back the loan due amount of Rs. 17,558/- stating that there is a due in paying the loan installment during the year 1999-2000, in the year 2000-2001 and 20001-2002. The notice itself shows that there is difference in the payment as stated by the opposite party and the demand notice and the receipt. The complainant's husband in the month of March 2009 paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party and for that, the opposite party did not issue the receipt. And in the month of June 2009 he passed away. After his expiry, the complainant approached the opposite party for the receipt. Instead of giving receipt, the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs. 28,000/- as the amount due to the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in facts or on law. The complainant has availed a loan facility worth of Rs. 21,382/- in the year 1998-99 for the construction of a house and completed the construction under the supervision of the opposite party and occupied the house in 1999. The complainant requested for the loan facility from the opposite party and agreed to repay the amount of materials and facilities availed for the construction of the house as per the terms and conditions agreed by her with 10% interest by depositing her title of property as security. The opposite party has availed this facility through a loan from HUDCO under the EWS Housing Scheme and provided loan facilities and materials to socially and economically backward people for the construction of house as per the terms and conditions from HUDCO. The complainant after occupying the house committed default in repaying the loan amount as agreed by her at the time of availing the loan facility by her for the construction of the house. The complainant has paid Rs. 17,800/- as principle amount plus interest till 2004-05, to the opposite party and the opposite party has given receipt for that. The complainant is due to pay an amount of Rs. 29,493/- as principal amount and interest as on March 2010. The opposite party has repaid the loan facility availed by him under the housing scheme from HUDCO with interest and heavy penal interest and sustained great loss and financial crisis due to the non-payment of loan by the beneficiaries like this complainant. The complainant may be directed to repay the loan facility availed by her from the opposite party, and the opposite party is ready to release the documents to the complainant. It was already intimated to the complainant through the reply notice. Instead of settling the matter, the complainant has approached this Forum with a false and frivolous complaint.
PW1 and PW2 were examined on behalf of the complainant. Opposite party had no evidence. Ext. P1 to P7 were marked on the part of the complainant.
The issues for consideration are:-
Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
Points (i) to (iii):- The opposite party has raised the question of limitation in their argument note though not pleaded specifically in their version, on the ground that the loan has been availed in the year 1998-99 and the complaint ought have been filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. But it is the case of the complainant that her husband had paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in March 2009 and the opposite party has not issued receipt for the same and that after the expiry of her husband in June 2009, she had approached the opposite party for a settlement but the opposite party demanded Rs. 28,000/- to be paid as amount due towards loan. As per PW2, he has deposed that the complainant had borrowed Rs. 10,000/- in 2005 for repayment of loan. Further PW2 has deposed that “വാദിക്ക് opposite party വീട് വയ്ക്കാന് grant എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് കൊടുത്ത തുക loan ആണ് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് തിരികെ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടപ്പോള് അതിനായിട്ടാണ് 10,000/- രൂപ എന്നില് നിന്നും കടമായി വാങ്ങിയത്. വാദി എനിക്ക് ടി തുക തിരികെ തന്നിട്ടില്ല”. He has not been cross examined by the opposite party.
It is the specific case of the complainant that, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited in March 2009 and receipt has not been issued to the complainant. Complainant has produced documents in support of her complaint. But though opposite party had no evidence, a statement of account has been furnished by them. Though the same has not been marked, we have gone through the same. There is no details regarding the loan number or date of loan or such other details of the loan. Complainant pleads that she had applied for a housing loan from the opposite party, but instead of loan amount she was delivered with 300 hollow bricks, 5 packets of cement, 4 pillars and 19 slabs for the construction of the building and that an amount of Rs. 21,382/- was unilaterally fixed by the opposite party for the same which according to the complainant are low quality materials. But the opposite party has contended that the complainant has repaid only Rs. 17,800/- and that the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to prove that she has remitted the entire outstanding loan amount of Rs. 29,439/- which was due to the opposite party for the financial year 2009-10. Here, at this juncture, the pertinent aspect to be considered is the terms and conditions of the loan. The opposite party has not produced any piece of paper relating to the said loan. The opposite party admits that the complainant has repaid Rs. 17,800/-. But the opposite party has not produced the particular register pertaining to the loan transaction of the complainant. The statement of accounts is only a rough statement seen prepared by the opposite parties. No receipt number or date of receipt has been mentioned therein. What prevented the opposite parties from producing the details of the loan of the complainant is not explained by the opposite parties. In the absence of the same and considering the above discussions and evidence we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her complaint. The complainant is found entitled for return of the original sale deeds of 10 cents and 1½ cents of property furnished as security.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall return the original sale deeds comprising of 10 cents and 1½ cents of property which were furnished as security and shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within a period of one month failing which complainant can initiate execution proceedings.
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 31st day of December 2011.
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 120/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Noorjahan
PW2 - Raveendran
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of demand draft by the complainant to opposite party
P2 - Copy of receipt issued by opposite party to complainant
P3 - Copy of letter dated 16.05.2001 by the Director, KEDES to
the complainant.
P4 - Copy of legal notice dated 25.02.2010.
P5 - Copy of reply notice dated 12.03.2010.
P6 - Postal receipt dated 25.02.2010
P7 - Acknowledgement card.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
