By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
The Complaint filed against the opposite party to write off the loan amount.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant received a loan of Rs.45,000/- in the year 1990 from the opposite party. In 1991 and 1993 complainant remitted Rs.497/- towards the principle and an interest of Rs.5,530/- towards the interest in 1997 Rs.10,000/- was given to the secretary in charge at that time for repayment. The complainant was not in a position to close the loan and the liability was pending. Upon the application of the complainant it was informed by the debt relief commission that the liability of the complainant in the bank was waived off till 31.12.2007 and a notice was received. When the complainant approached the opposite party to get back the title deed pledged, the opposite party is not ready to release title
deed to the complainant. The land tax is not at present received by the village officer and it is due to the objection of the opposite party. There may be an order directing opposite party to release title deed and to close the liability of the complainant.
3. The opposite party filed version in short it is as follows:- The complainant availed housing loan in various dates such as 29.01.1990, 06.02.1990 and 30.06.1990 on execution of registered gehan in favor of this opposite party. The loan was not repaid and it was foreclosed on 09.04.1997. The property in security was auctioned and the opposite party purchased in auction on 21.06.1997. The complainant is not having any right upon the property and she is not entitled to get back the documents. The allegation of the complainant is that she remitted Rs.10,000/- and
the other payments made by her is to be proved by the complainant herself. For each and every payment in the bank it would be properly accounted. The loan was foreclosed on 09.04.1997. The question of writing off the debts does not arise since loan was closed on 09.04.1997 and there was no loan on 31.12.2007. The complaint filed is without any bonofides and it is to be dismissed with cost. The order of the debt relief commission is infractuous being the loan was closed on 09.04.1997 and no liability holds the property on 31.12.2007.
4. The points that are to be decided:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Points No.1 and 2 :- The evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of the
complainant, Ext.A1 and A2. The opposite party also produced documents Ext.B1 to B5.
6. The allegation of the complainant is that the liability of the complainant in the opposite party bank was written off by the debt relief commission. But the documents kept as security is not released to the complainant. It is true that Ext.A1 is the information sent to the complainant that the loan amount availed from the opposite party till 31.12.2007 is written off on the application of the complainant. Ext.B1 is the copy of the registered letter sent to the complainant by the special sale officer that the land property of the complainant would be auctioned from the premises of village officer Sulthan Bathery on 21st June 1997. The sale of immovable property is intimated to the complainant by the special sale officer and the copy of the notice dated 21.06.1997 is Ext.B3. The immovable property in the extent of 10 cents in Survey No.786/1A1A situated in Dodappankulam is purchased in auction by the opposite party and the complainant was given sufficient opportunity to close the liability and that was also informed to the complainant. Ext.B5 is the copy of the acknowledgment where the complainant was informed the purchase of the land property. The purchase in auction by the opposite party of the land property cannot be interfered. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result complaint is dismissed. No Order as to cost.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 17th December 2011.
Date of Filing:23.09.2011.
