DATE OF FILING : 21.1.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 3Oth day of March, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.20/2011
Between
Complainant : C.D. Rejimon, S/o Late Devasia,
Chennathu House,
Kochuthovala P.O.
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Sijimon K. Augustine) And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Housing Board,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Housing Board,
Idukki Division, Kattappana,
Kattapana P.O.,
Idukki District.
3. The Accounts Officer,
Kerala State Housing Board,
Idukki Division, Kattappana,
Kattapana P.O.,
Idukki District.
(All by Adv: V.C. Sebastian)
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for constructing a house, from the opposite party. The complainant's mother was suffering from cancer and the complainant spent much amount for her treatment, due to the illness of his father and mother, the complainant could not repay the EMI in time. According to the statement of the opposite parties, an amount of Rs.5,83,684/- plus interest and other expenses are due to the opposite party as on 1.12.2010. The amount due to them includes penal interest, default interest and other hidden charges. Due to the illness of his father and mother, the complainant filed an application before the opposite parties to avoid penal interest, default interest and seeking instalments to remit the balance. The complainant also demanded the statement of accounts of his loan transaction showing details regarding the payment made and also showing the details of interest, penal interest and default interest. As per the statement of accounts, till 1.12.2010, they had charged Rs.2,07,050/- as default interest and Rs.38,609/- as penal interest. Facts being so, the Government of Kerala as per the Order (M.S.)14/10/Housing dated 20.4.2010 declared lot of privileges to the remittance of defaulted loan amount. As per the order of the Government, it is directed to avoid penal interest and defaulted interest. The complainant is ready to remit his loan instalments if the defaulted and penal interests are avoided by the opposite parties. The complainant personally approached the 2nd opposite party, for the benefits of the Government scheme. The complainant lodged an application dated 19.5.2010 to the opposite party to that effect. But the opposite parties with ulterior motives, avoided to provide the benefits of said scheme to the complainant. The opposite parties made the complainant to believe that his file was sent to the head office for sanction and on receipt of the same loan account can be closed. Now the opposite parties issued notice for the recovery of loan amount together with penal interest, default interest and other charges from the complainant. The complainant has every right to get the benefits of the scheme declared by the Government. Moreover charging of default interest in addition to penal interest is illegal and hence the complainant is not liable to pay that amount. The opposite parties have no right to recover the entire amount without providing the benefits under scheme declared by the Government. So the petition is filed for directing the opposite parties to settle the loan account of the complainant as per the benefits of scheme provided by the state Government, for declaring that the charging of default interest and penal interest is illegal and also for compensation.
2. As per written version filed by the 3rd opposite party, the charging of penal interest and default interest from the defaulter of loan is not illegal, as alleged by the complainant. The complainant availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- under the MIG Scheme from the opposite party for constructing a new house with 3 bedrooms having a plinth area of 81.75 M2 by mortgaging the property of Sy.No.37/1 (Re-Survey No.240/6) in Kattappana Village. The complainant was a chronic defaulter and hence revenue recovery actions were proceeded against the complainant to recover the amount to the Board. Revenue recovery action initiated against the complainant to recover the amount to the Board. The petitioner never approached the Board for availing the OTS benefit. The amount demanded by the opposite party Housing Board is as per the Mortgage Deed executed by him with the Board. There is no hidden charges in the demanded amount. The complainant never demanded the details of statement. The Housing Board introduced OTS benefit again from 1.1.2011 to 30.6.2011. The complainant can avail OTS benefit. The complainant can save an amount of Rs.2,07,693/- if he remits an amount of Rs.4,14,898/- on or before 31.3.2011. The amount due from the complainant had been worked out, complying the condition laid down by the Board in the Mortgage Deed, without violation of the rights of the customers. In the circumstances, the complainant can avail the OTS benefits which will still in existence. There is no deficiency from the part of the opposite party.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. No oral evidence adduced by both the parties. Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT :- As per the complainant, he availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for the construction of house from the opposite parties. But he was not able to repay the loan because his mother was seriously affected with cancer and the complainant spent much money for the treatment. So the complainant approached the opposite party for repayment of loan and a letter was issued to the opposite party stating that his mother was seriously affected with cancer and his father and mother were under treatment. And also requested for statement of account and expressed his willingness to settle the loan. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P1. But the opposite party issued revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant on 1.12.2010 and copy of the proceedings is marked as Ext.P2(series). The complainant was ready to repay the amount to the opposite party, but they have charged penal and default interests against the complainant. As per the Government Order (MS)14/10/Housing dated 20.4.2010, a lot of privileges to the remittance of defaulted loan were declared and also directed to avoid penal and default interest. But the opposite party charged penal interest and default interest for the loan of the complainant. The complainant was ready to pay the loan amount to the opposite party on 19.5.2010. A Fixed Deposit receipt showing that the complainant is having an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as Fixed Deposit in General Finance Corporation, Kottayam from 18.12.2010 to a period upto 16.6.2011 which is marked as Ext.P3. But the opposite party was not ready to receive the same and charged hike interest for the complainant's loan. As per the opposite party, they are entitled for default interest and penal interest from the complainant as per the loan agreement created between them, Ext.R1 is the copy of the loan agreement. The statement of account of the loan is marked as Ext.R2. A letter was given to the complainant by the opposite party on 14.2.2011 stating that OTS facility is given and if the complainant pays an amount of Rs.4,18,736/- on or before 31.3.2011, he will get a benefit of Rs.2,07,692/- and this scheme will exists upto 30.6.2011. It is as per the Government Order (MS)14/10 Housing dated 20.4.2010.
So it is admitted by the complainant that he was not able to repay the loan amount because of the treatment expenses of his father and mother. As per the opposite party, the complainant is a chronic defaulter of the loan and he never paid any amount to the opposite party after availing the loan. The complainant also never produced evidence to show that he paid some amount to the opposite party. As per the complainant, he was ready to pay the loan to the opposite party and he was having a Fixed Deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- on 18.12.2010, a letter was given to the opposite party expressing his willingness to pay the amount to the opposite party, as per Ext.P1 on 19.5.2010. But the opposite party never acted upon that. But we think that, the Ext.P2(series) proceedings of the Accounts Officer, Kerala State Housing Board, Idukki, in which it is requested for revenue recovery, issued on 1.12.2010 for an amount of Rs.5,83,684/- at 12% interest per month from 1.12.2010 till the date of realisation. Eventhough the complainant has given an application to the opposite party, stating his willingness on 19.5.2010, the opposite party initiated recovery proceedings against the complainant which is not at all believable. There is no enmity proved by the complainant against the opposite party. There is no acknowledgement receipt for Ext.P1 letter which was alleged by the complainant that he has issued to the opposite party. The opposite party gave a statement of account and issued a letter which is Ext.R2, to the complainant stating that they are ready to settle the complainant's loan in OTS scheme and the complainant will get a benefit of Rs.2,07,692/- as per the Government Order (MS)14/10 Housing, dated 20.4.2010. Ext.R3 letter shows that the complainant can get benefit of OTS scheme as per the Government Order and they are ready to offer this to the complainant extended to 30.6.2011. But the complainant argued that he was ready to pay the amount in time and there is a fixed deposit receipt for Rs.6,00,000/- in the General Finance Corporation. But the fixed deposit receipt shows a deposit for a period from 18.12.2010 to 16.6.2011, for 180 days and interest for the fixed deposit is 12% per annum. So we think that if the complainant was ready to repay the loan and if the opposite party is not ready to receive it with the benefit of the Government scheme, what prevented the complainant to issue a notice under registered post to the opposite party stating his willingness to pay the amount if the opposite party allows to repay with the benefit declared by the Government. No legal notice or other proceedings were initiated against the opposite party after the same. The only fixed deposit receipt shows the willingness to repay the loan to the opposite party. The fixed deposit amount is for an interest of 12%. So the opposite parties are ready to provide OTS benefit to the complainant, as per the Government Order (MS)14/10 Housing dated 20.4.2010, and the complainant will get a benefit of Rs.2,07,692/-, Ext.R3 also shows the same. The scheme also extended upto 30.6.2011. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the penal interest has been waived and a reduction in default interest, that is 70% of the default interest can be waived as per this scheme. The complainant never produced any evidence to show that he paid any one of the instalments of the loan. So we think that there is no deficiency proved by the complainant against the opposite party.
Hence the petition dismissed with a direction to the opposite parties to settle the loan account of the complainant as per the Government Order (MS)14/10 Housing dated 20.4.2010 and as per the Ext.R3 letter dated 14.2.2011.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 19.5.2010.
Ext.P2 - Copy of the revenue recovery proceedings issued by the 3rd opposite party.
Ext.P3 - Copy of the fixed deposit receipt for Rs.6,00,000/- in the name of the complainant.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 - Copy of the loan agreement.
Ext.R2 - The statement of account of the loan of the complainant.
Ext.R3 - Copy of the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 14.2.2011.
