State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.P.Co-Op.Housefed Hyderabad vs Penumadu Kamalamma W/O. Late ... on 22 August, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.862/2010 against C.C.No.129/2009 District Forum, KADAPA Between A.P.Co-op.Housefed Rep. by its Managing Director Hyderabad. ..Appellant/ O.P.2 And 1.
Penumadu Kamalamma W/o. late Srinivasulu aged about 58 years, Occ:Nil, (not mentioned in C.D) R/o.D.No.6/517, Krishnanagar, R.S.Road, Rajampet Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. Respondent/ Complainant
2. The Rajampet Co-operative Building Society Ltd., rep. by its President No. N 935, Rajampet Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. Respondent/ Opp.party 1 Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Maturi Arvind Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.R.Venkata Krishna-R1 R2-served QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, AND SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER, WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.129/2009 on the file of District Forum, Kadapa, opposite party No.2 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the member of opposite party No.1 society and availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from opposite party No.1 for construction of house and the loan amount was sanctioned by opposite party No.2. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was withheld by opposite party No.1 towards share capital amount and that amount has to be refunded after clearance of loan amount and the loan account number is 531.
The complainant submitted that towards security, the 1st opposite party took the registered document belonging to the property. The complainant submitted that her husband used to pay the instalments regularly to first opposite party and in connection with the loan, there was a life insurance policy to the members, who availed loans from the society and the premium amount of insurance had been collected and deducted by the respondents and as per this policy, in case of death of the person who availed loan, the remaining loan amount will be credited in the account towards insurance amount. The complainant submitted that her husband died on 21-11-2007 at SVIM, Tirupathi due to ill heath and the fact of death of her husband was informed to the first opposite party but first opposite party insisted the complainant to pay the balance loan amount of Rs.47,000/- and warned that they will not forward the proposal for insurance till the balance was paid. The complainant submitted that having no other go, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/-, Rs.22,500/- and Rs.23,000/- on different dates i.e. 15-12-2007, 12-3-2008 and 17-3-2008 respectively and thereafter the first opposite party forwarded the insurance claim to the insurance company through 2nd opposite party. The insurance amount was to be credited into the loan account of the husband of the complainant from the date of his death i.e. 21-11-2007 and the complainant submitted that she requested the opposite party No.1 to return the original registered document but there was no response. The complainant submitted that after a lapse and one and half year, she received a notice dated 25-6-2009 from the first opposite party informing that the insurance company paid Rs.1,33,330/- which has been adjusted in the loan account and demanded for interest and penal interest of Rs.19,455/- plus Rs.828/- = Rs.20,283/- for belated adjustment. The complainant submitted that as per the terms of the loan, after payment of balance, loan debt will be completed and as the opposite parties forwarded the claim belatedly, the amount was adjusted on 23-10-2008 due to their fault and except death intimation and submitting relevant documents, the complainant has nothing to do with the claim and submitted that there are no latches on her behalf for the delay payment made by the insurance company. The complainant further submitted that she approached the office of opposite party No.1 number of times to release the original registered documents as well as refund of Rs.10,000/- but the first opposite party refused to do so. Hence the complainant got issued a legal notice on 13-7-2009 calling upon opposite parties to register the original documents which were kept in mortgage but they failed to give reply. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to return the original documents pertaining to the property and also refund Rs.10,000/- share capital amount together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of death of her husband i.e. 21-11-2007 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Opposite party No.1 filed counter resisting the complaint and contended that the President of Co-op. Building Society Ltd. is only Honarary post and R1 was the chief executive or Manager of the society and the work of the President is only general supervision over the staff of the society and to conduct Board of Director meetings or General Body Meetings. The entire properties, books and records are all in the custody of the Manager of the society and the Board of Directors will forward the loan application to A.P.Co-operative House Federation, Hyderabad and after verification of all records, they will sanction the amount. All the documents will be with opposite party No.2 and not with the President of the society and after clearance of loan, opposite party No.2 will send back the documents to the concerned society and after receipt of the same, the society will return the documents to the loanees. R1 further submitted that regarding insurance, balance dues of the loanee, payment details and return of documents is to be answered by the second opposite party and not R1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2nd opposite party filed counter resisting the complaint and contended that the Co-op. Tribunal is constituted at Hyderabad to resolve the disputes between a co-operative society and its members in view of Section 76 of A.P.C.S. Act and the complainant has to seek his remedy before the co-op. Tribunals only. It admitted the sanction of loan but not to the husband of the complainant and for the purpose of housing loan to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 submitted that the complainant obtained loan from opposite party No.1 society financed by R2 and A.P.Housefed, Hyderabad for Rs.2,00,000/- through proceedings dated 7-4-2002 of Managing Director, A.P.Housefed with certain terms and conditions. Opposite party No.2 denied the allegation that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was upheld by opposite party No.1 towards share capital and that it will be refunded after clearance of loan amount is false and has to be proved by the complainant. Opposite party No.2 further submitted that as could be ascertained from the records, there was a notice issued by opposite party No.1 dated 25-6-2009 requiring the complainant to pay Rs.20,283/- due as on the said date and the complainant had filed the present complaint to evade the said payment. Opposite party no.2 submitted that it is no way concerned to the relief sought for by the complainant and the return of original documents is not within its purview and submitted that it sanctions the loan to the loanees through opposite party No.1 and submitted that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidenced adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A8 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to jointly and severally return the original registered documents pertaining to the husband of the complainant which was kept in the custody of R1 towards mortgage and further directed to refund share capital amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of death of the husband of the complainant i.e. from 21-11-2007 till the date of realization together with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.2 preferred this appeal.
It is the complainants case that her husband has availed a housing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite parties vide loan account No.531 evidenced under Ex.A1 and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was deducted from the loan amount towards share capital amount which had to be returned after settlement of the loan.
On 21-11-2007, the complainants husband died at Tirupathi due to ill health evidenced under Ex.A2, Certificate of death. The complainant remitted the balance loan amount of Rs.47,000/- as demanded by the opposite parties and the remaining loan amount was adjusted with the insurance loan amount. Thereafter the complainant received a notice dated 25-6-2009 vide Ex.A4 stating that she is due an amount of Rs.20,283/- towards penal interest for the insurance amount which was belatedly adjusted, for which the complainant got issued Ex.A5 reply on 13-7-2009 calling upon opposite party no.1 to return the original documents and refund the share capital amount of Rs.10,000/- together with interest.
As seen from the record, the complainant cleared the entire loan amount by 17-3-2008 and there is an entry in the ledger maintained by opposite party no.1, vide LA No.531, ledger No.8 and page No.26. Opposite party no.1 did not submit the LIC proposals waiving the entire loan amount outstanding as on the date of the death of the complainants husband.
Opposite party no.1 demanded the complainant to pay Rs.47,000/- which was outstanding as on the date of death of the complainants husband. After this payment was made, a proposal for adjustment of the remaining loan amount of Rs.1,33,000/- was submitted by opposite party No.1 to LIC.
It is the case of opposite party no.1 that the entire books and records are in the custody of the Manager of the society and that after the loan is sanctioned, opposite party no.2 will send the documents to the concerned society which will return the documents to the loanees.
It is the case of opposite party no.2 that the only remedy for the complainant is to approach the Co-op. Tribunal and submits that as per the notice issued by opposite party No.1 on 25-6-2009, the complainant has to pay Rs.20,283/- which is the due amount and only to avoid paying this amount, the complainant has filed this complaint.
Appellant/Opposite party no.2 filed Exs.B1 to B4 by way of additional evidence.
It is not in dispute that the title deeds have been deposited by the complainant for a loan of Rs.2.00,000/- sanctioned by A.P. Co-op. Housing Society. In the memorandum of deposit of title deeds, Ex.B2, the schedule of the property is clearly written. Ex.B4 is a letter written by opposite party no.1 to opposite party No.2 stating that in its resolution dated 28-12-2007 it requested the Managing Director of O.P.2 to claim the amount from LIC. Opposite party No.1 has left the amounts due to be collected from LIC as blank on page 2 of this exhibit B4 which is dated 11-1-2008 which does not explain the time frame taken by appellant herein towards adjustment of the amounts. The complainant in her affidavit stated that she has paid Rs.10,000/-, 22,500/- and 23,000/- on 15-12-2007, 12-3-2008 and 17-3-2008 respectively. It is not in dispute that the complainants husband died on 21-11-2007 and the insurance amount was adjusted to the loan account on 23-10-2008 and then charged interest and penal interest for the belated period.
Keeping in view that the complainant had paid the entire amount, we are of the considered opinion the District Forum has rightly directed to return the original documents pertaining to the complainants husband together with the refund of share capital amount of Rs.10,000/-. As the loan is cleared, the act of the opposite parties in not returning the original documents to the complainant herein amounts to clear deficiency in service for which the district Forum has rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
In the result this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.22-8-2012