State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.2683-Alagappan Co-Operative ... vs Mrs. Fathima Rani, Wife Of Late Pounraj, ... on 7 April, 2011
BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH II) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Member Judicial Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., Member F.A.No.168/2008 [Against order in C.C.No.258/1999 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai] THURSDAY, THE 7th DAY OF APRIL 2011. A.2683-Alagappan Co-operative Building Society Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, (Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Buildings) No.187-North Veli Street, Madurai 625 001. .. Appellant/Opposite party Vs. Mrs. Fathima Rani, Wife of Late Pounraj, Abaranji Illam, VOC Main Road, P.P.Chavadi, Madurai 625 016. .. Respondent/Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Madurai alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay the balance 3rd instalment loan amount of Rs.90,000/-, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and to pay costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Madurai dated 7.6.07 in C.C.No.258/1999. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.3.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on appellants side, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- Counsel for the Appellant/opposite party : Mr.K.K.Senthilkumar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent/complainant : Remained absent. ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL
1. The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party, praying for the relief of release of 3rd installment housing loan for Rs.90,000/- being the 3rd instalment and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and for cost.
3. The complainant applied for housing loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite party as A Group member and accordingly Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.90,000/- as 1st and 2nd instalments of loan were granted on 20.5.97 and 11.9.97 respectively. Thereafter without giving any reason the 3rd instalment was not released and on 14.6.99 a demand notice for the payment of Rs.69,763.90 to be payable within 7 days was sent by the opposite party and thereby a legal notice was sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 1.7.99 and was received by the opposite party on 2.7.99, but no reply has been received.
4. The opposite party filed written version denying the allegations of the complainant and stated that the late husband of the complainant was also a member of the society and for the sanction of 3rd instalment certain documents relating to the complainant age, Income Certificate, Chitta, Adangal, Approved Plan, Engineers estimation and opinion of the lawyer etc. Details were called for and she has not submitted the same till now and as per the higher authorities instructions further loan was stopped and on production of the documents further instalments to be dispersed.
5. On the basis of the materials placed before the District Forum after an enquiry it allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party to release Rs.90,000/- as 3rd instalment of loan and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs.
6. Aggrieved by the same the opposite party has come forward with this appeal and in the grounds of appeal among other grounds stated that the complainant has not repaid her defaulted loan arrears amounts of Rs.69,764/- and for which Exhibit A3 was sent and the records relating mortgaged property documents are in the name of the deceased Pounraj, the husband of the complainant and the legal heirs have to change all the property records in their name and thereby documents were called for the same and she has not done the same which are all mandatory requirements for the bank to grant the loan the District Forum failed to consider all those aspects and erroneously passed the order.
7. When the appeal is taken up for the final hearing on 21.3.2011 and even prior to that for several hearings the complainant/respondent in this appeal not appeared and remained absent, in spite of the paper publication was effected as the earlier notices returned as no such person and in the absence of the respondent after hearing the appellant side arguments the order is being passed on merits.
8. The admitted facts of the both side case is that the opposite party granted house loan on executing the mortgage deed by the complainant for Rs.3,00,000/- payable in 3 instalments and only two instalments of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.90,000/- were dispersed and subsequently instead of releasing the 3rd instalment of Rs.90,000/- a demand notice Exhibit A3 was sent for payment of Rs.69,763.90 and on the basis of the same, the complainant issued a legal notice Exhibit A4 for which no reply was sent by the opposite party and in the version it is stated that since the complainants husband died certain documents were called for and as the same were not produced by the complainant further loan was stopped and on the side of the opposite party filed office note as Exhibit B1 in which the details for complainants loan mentioned to be payable in 3 instalments and under which it is mentioned that the age certificate of the complainant Income certificate, Chitta, Adangal and Corporation approval, Engineers Estimation are to be filed by the complainant. This Exhibit B1 is only an office note by the opposite party maintained and nowhere it is proved that those documents were called for from the complainant either before the sanctioning of 1st instalment or after release of 1st and 2nd instalments and execution of mortgage deed as per Exhibit A1. Further even before the execution of mortgage deed Exhibit A1 the husband of complainant died which fact was mentioned in the mortgage deed itself by mentioning the names of the two sons and the complainant as wife of late Pounraj and children of late Pounraj and in those circumstances ages of the parties also mentioned and it is the common procedure to obtain all the necessary documents even before grant of loan in order to ensure the capability of repaying capacity and the ownership of the property and in this case the question of production of alleged documents referred in Exhibit B1 must have been asked for prior to the sanction of the subject house building loan by the society. But after sanctioning the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and obtaining a registered mortgage deed under Exhibit A1 in which it was categorically stated she has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as loan and non disbursement of 3rd instalment of Rs.90,000/- by stating certain documents are required at the first time in their return version could not be an acceptable and valid reasons and is only an after thought innovation act of the opposite party cannot be justified. Even in their demand notice Exhibit A3 no whisper is made neither for requirement of documents or for non sanction of 3rd instalment.
9. Therefore there was the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thereby the complainant is entitled for the relief of compensation and the District Forum has considered relevant facts and circumstances while allowing the complaint and in the circumstances, we feel that the District Forums order suffers no infirmity and thereby the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Regarding the question of compensation and cost the District Forum awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation by considering the sufferings and loss to the complainant for non getting the 3rd instalment of housing loan in time and thereby construction of house work become stopped and for the unreasonable demand for the payment of Rs.69,764/- would also cause mental agony and sufferings and thereby the sum of Rs.10,000/- award is reasonable and acceptable one and as far as the cost is concerned a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded and this only seems to be on the higher side by considering the nature of complaint and thereby only in respect of cost alone this Commission has to interfere to reduce the same.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed except to the modification of cost and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- only as costs to the complainant and in other respects the District Forum, order is hereby confirmed. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka//co-op.bank