ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> The complainant stands filed for getting an injunction order restraining the opp.parties 1 and 2 from initiating R.R. Proceedings including auction and sale of schedule properly as noted in the sale notice NO.D7/1807/2000 and for other relief.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The applicant had taken a loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the 2nd opp.party in the year 1997. The complainants had mortgaged the property of 3.50 ares of property in Nedumpana village, survey No.3415 in favour of 2nd opp.party. As per the agreement executed by complainants with the 2nd opp.party the complainants agreed to repay the loan amount in 120 instalments. The complainants was not able to repay the loan amount in proper time. Recently a notice was served by the 2nd opp.party that an amount of Rs.8,28,655/- due from the complainant to the 2nd opp.party. The amount demanded by the 1st opp.party is not correct and calculation of interest is also not correct and the applicant is not liable to pay the default amount and also the amount demanded by the 2nd opp.party from the applicant is barred by Law of Limitation.Without ascertaining the correct balance amount due to the 2nd opp.party from the applicants the opp.parties fraudulently, illegally and arbitrarily initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the plaint schedule property in order to illegally recovering the amount from the applicants. Hence prays for relief.<br /> <br /> The first opp.party filed a version contending as follows: The R.R. proceedings were initiated against the complainants only on the basis of the direction issued by the District Collector, KollamThe amount was advised by the Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, Kollam. Accordingly notices under section 7 and 31 , sec. 36, and Sec.49[2] of KRR Act were served to the defaulter consequently through Village Officer, Nedumpana. The KRR Act permits the Tahsildar {RR] Kollam to proceed against the defaulters for the early realization of dues. It include methods of attachment and sale of both movables and immovable properties owned by the defaulter. It can also invoke Sec. 65 of KER Act. The Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against the complainants only are on the basis of Direction issued By District Collector, Kollam. The amount was advised by Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, Kollam. If the complaint has objection about the amount due he must approach the concerned authority to get reliefs. Hence the action taken by the 1st opp.party is fair and legal. None of the prays are not liable to be allowed. There is no liability to the 1st opp.party to pay cost to the complainants.<br /> <br /> The 2nd opp.party filed a version contending interalia, that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant taken a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the 2nd opp.party in the year 1997 is false. The complainant had taken a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Kerala State Housing Board by executing Mortgage Deed dt. 17.5.1999. The allegations of the complainant in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the complaint are absolutely false. The amount demanded from the complainant was the correct amount due to the 2nd opp.party from the complainant. The calculation of the interest was also correct. The amount demanded by the 2nd opp.party is not barred by limitations. The complainant was liable to repay the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in 120 monthly instalments of Rs.9675/- each from10.9.1999 onwards. But sop far he has not paid even a single instalment. As per the provisions of the mortgage deed the Board is entitled to realize the entire loan amount together with interest and other charges if the loanee defaults loan instalments. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint with the cost of the KSHB.<br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> 2. Reliefs and costs.<br /> For the Complainant PW.1 is examined. No evidence marked.<br /> No oral or documentary evidenced by the opp.parties <br /> Points:<br /> The 1st opp.party’s main contention is that the complaint filed against R.R. proceedings is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.<br /> The R.R. proceedings were initiated against the petitioners only on the basis of the direction issued by the District Collector, Kollam and the amount was advised by the 2nd opp.party. The K.R.R. Act permits the 1st opp.party to proceed against the defaulters for the early realizations of dues.<br /> From the entire evidence before the Forum we are of the view that the 1st opp.party proceeded the R.R. proceedings as per the direction issued by the District Collector, Kollam. K.R.R. Act permits the 1st opp.party to proceed against the defaulters for the early realization of dues.. It includes methods of attachment and sale of both movables and immovable properties owned by the defaulter. The Forum has no jurisdiction to restrict the District Collector once R.R. proceedings have commenced. Hence we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. 1 and 2<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No cost.<br /> Dated this the 1st day of Noveber, 2008 <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> List of witnesses for the complainant.<br /> PW.1. – Hydros<br /> List of documents for the complainant: NIL<br /> List of witness and documents for the complainant: NIL<br />