IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2015
Filed on 02.09.2013
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.268/2013
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. P. Sahadevan The Authorized Officer
Kadavil Parambil Kerala State Housing Board
Aroor P.O., Cherthala Cherthala Branch Office
(By Adv. Preetha Anil Raveendran) Cherthala
(By Adv. Tony Antony)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant’s father late Sri. Padmanabhan availed a housing loan from the opposite party on 8.10.2000 for an amount of Rs.70,000/- and he had been remitting the monthly installments regularly till his death. The complainant’s father died on 10.6.2001 and thereafter the complainant remitted monthly installments regularly till 2007. Further the complainant could not remit the monthly installments because his only income was from the drift netting to catch fish (Oonnivala), but the same was removed by the Government and he hasn’t got any compensation from the Government. So the monthly installments became due from 2007 onwards and the opposite party initiated attachment proceedings. When the opposite party initiated attachment proceedings there was an order from the Kerala Government that all loans taken by the fishermen deserve exemption under Debt Relief Scheme for fishermen. The complainant also filed an application before the Debt Relief Scheme for fishermen and the same was intimated to the opposite party also. While so the opposite party has affixed a sale notice and as per the said notice, the opposite party will auction the said mortgaged property to realize Rs.1,64,771/- on 11.9.2013. The complainant further alleged that the amount of Rs.1,64,771/- claimed by the opposite party is exorbitant and baseless. Further more the opposite party has not issued notice to the legal heirs of deceased Padmanabhan and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party seeking direction against the opposite party restraining from all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 3.8.2013 along with compensation.
2. Notice was served to the opposite party and they appeared before the Forum, and filed version. The version in short is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant’s father has mortgaged the property to the opposite party for taking loan. As per the loan agreement, the loan amount of Rs.70,000/- along with interest @ 15.5% shall be repaid within a period of 168 months and one monthly installment was Rs.1027/-. The complainant has not informed the opposite party that his father was died on 10.6.2001. The monthly remittance was made regularly till 28.10.2006. Opposite party has given the complainant a chance to remit the balance amount after deducting an amount of Rs.75,000/- which was deserved by the complainant under the Fishermen Debt Relief Scheme. But the complainant has not effected the payment deliberately. The amount of Rs.1,64,771/- claimed is the balance of the principal amount along with interest and also other miscellaneous charges. The complainant has not made any payment towards the loan transactions after 2006 October and hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the notice dated 3.8.2013 issued by the opposite party, Ext.A2 is the copy of death certificate, Ext.A3 is the copy of legal heirship certificate, Ext.A4 is the copy of identity card, Ext.A5 is the copy of license certificate of late Sri. Padmanabhan and Ext.A6 is the copy of receipt dated 24.2.2001. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B6 series. Ext.B1 is the copy of mortgage deed, Ext.B2 is the demand notice dated 17.7.2010, Ext.B3 is the demand notice prior to the attachment of land dated 17.7.2010, Ext.B4 is the copy of extract of the minutes of the Board meeting held on 24.9.2012, Ext.B5 is the closing statement produced by the opposite party and Ext.B6 series are the copy of vouchers and bill (4 Nos.)
4. The complainant filed the complaint on 2.9.2013along with the complaint he filed an IA to stay the proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 3.8.2013 issued by the opposite party. The IA was allowed and stay was granted. During the course of the proceedings, the matter was settled. The complainant got a benefit of Rs.75,000/- under the Fishermen Debt Relief Scheme and an amount of Rs. 70,973/- was exempted by the opposite party under one time settlement and the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.23,206/-. Thereafter the complainant contest the case alleging that the amount realized by the opposite party is exorbitant and he is entitled to get refund of the excess amount paid. So the points that arose for consideration are:- 1) Whether the opposite party has charged any excess amount from the complainant?
2) Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant?
5. Points 1 and 2:- The complainant filed this complaint before the Forum on 2.9.2013 when the opposite party initiated sale proceedings over the mortgaged property to realize defaulted amount of Rs.1,64,771/- seeking a direction against the opposite party restraining from all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 3.8.2013 along with the complaint, the complainant also filed an IA to stay the proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 3.8.2013 issued by the opposite party and that IA was allowed. During the course of the proceedings, the matter was settled and his primary grievance was satisfied. Thereafter the complainant contest the case alleging the amount realized by the opposite party was exorbitant and hence claimed for the refund of the excess amount paid. In order to find out whether the opposite party has realized any excess amount from the complainant we have to peruse the Ext.B5 ie. the closing statement produced by the opposite party. On a perusal of Ext.B5 document, the total amount due is Rs.1,64,591/- including principal amount due, interest amount due. Penal interest due and default interest. The opposite party has waived the penal interest and default interest amounting a total of Rs.70,973/-, the amount charged includes only principal amount due and its interest. In addition to the said amount opposite party charged an amount of Rs.1,086/- towards RRC Rs.2002/- towards advertisement charges and Rs.1500/- as miscellaneous. So the amount claimed after waiving the P1 and D1 is Rs.98,206/- and from which an amount of Rs.75,000/- was deducted which was granted under Fisherman’s Debt Relief Scheme. The remaining balance of Rs.23,026/- was paid by the complainant. On a perusal of the documents, we can’t find that opposite party has charged any excess amount towards interest. The only doubt that came up for consideration that whether the amount Rs.2002/- charged under the head advertisement charge is excess or not and to clarify the same opposite party has produced Ext.B5 series. On a scrutiny of these documents, we can’t say that amount collected under the head advertisement charge is excess. This Forum can’t find that the opposite party has charged any excess amount from the complainant. Hence the complaint fails. Since there is no deficiency in service proved the question of compensation does not arose for consideration. So the complaint is dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - P. Sahadevan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Notice dated 3.8.13 issued by the opposite party
Ext.A2 - True copy of death certificate
Ext.A3 - True copy of legal heirship certificate
Ext.A4 - Attested copy of identity card
Ext.A5 - Copy of license certificate of late Sri. Padmanabhan
Ext.A6 - Copy of receipt dated 24.2.2001
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Jayasree M.K. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of mortgage deed
Ext.B2 - Demand notice dated 17.7.2010
Ext.B3 - Demand notice prior to the attachment of land dated 17.7.2010
Ext.B4 - Copy of extract of the minutes of the Board meeting held on 24.9.2012
Ext.B5 - Closing statement produced by the opposite party
Ext.B6 series - Copy of vouchers and bill (4 Nos.)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
