Patna High Court
Smt. Rukmini Devi vs The Bihar State Housing Co-Operative ... on 2 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)BLJR2364
JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent-Federation to release all documents concerned relating to her house, which are still lying in the office of the respondents irrespective of the fact that entire finally calculated and demanded amount of dues of the Federation has already been paid by her.
2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner took loan of Rs. 50,000/- and her husband was guarantor of the said loan. The husband of the petitioner died on 30th October, 1985. According to the case of the petitioner, the said loan was taken by her as per the scheme of the Bihar Cooperative Housing Finance Society Ltd. The respondent-Federation stepped into the shoes of the said Society and as such, they are bound by the terms as provided for in the Scheme, contained in Annexure-1. As per the said Scheme, benefit of Group Life Insurance was that after the death of the member, the remaining loan amount shall not be required to be paid and the descendant will get title over the house. The words 'guarantor' and the 'member' are defined in the Group Insurance Scheme which is at page 54. According to it, 'the guarantor' shall mean the person who has agreed to guarantee repayment of the loan (principal and interest thereon) which has been disbursed by the Finance Society for a female borrower who is not in receipt of an income. The definition of the words 'the member' mean the particular borrower or the guarantor who has been admitted to the membership of the Scheme and whose life an assurance has been or is to be effected in accordance with the Rules.
3. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under the said scheme, there is no liability of the petitioner to pay the remaining amount of loan after the death of her husband on 30th October, 1985. However, as a bona fide loanee, the petitioner continued to pay the remaining amount of loan as demanded from time to time by the respondent-Federation so much so that even pursuant to the letter of the Federation dated 3.2.1995, contained in Annexure-12, whereby final accounting showing balance dues payable as Rs. 8,813.18 was deposited by her with the Federation vide receipt dated 25.4.95, contained in Annexure-13, yet the respondents did not release the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of taking loan.
4. According to the case of the respondent-Federation, it is not correct to say that the petitioner made full and final payment of the loan amount. It is submitted that as per the provisions contained in clause 13 of the Group Insurance Scheme, the petitioner was entitled to only 75% of the sum assured which was to be adjusted as against the loan and after making the said adjustment, a sum of Rs. 30,052.24 is required to be paid by the petitioner till 14.9.2000. In this regard, learned Counsel for the respondent-Federation has referred to the account of the petitioner, contained in Annexure C to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Federation today.
5. This Court is unable to appreciate the said stand taken on behalf of the respondent-Federation. From the letter of the Federation, contained in Annexure 12, it appears that the only dispute till then was with respect to interest for the period 23.5.1986 to 1.9.1989 which, according to the Federation itself, was realisable from the Life Insurance Corporation and not from the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 921 of 1998, vide order dated 14.9.1998, contained in Annexure 17, also took notice of the argument that the issue between the parties has been finally disposed of by the said letter so far as the petitioner is concerned and direction that it is for the appellant-petitioner to apprise this fact to the writ Court by filing an appropriate application. Moreover, learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that the stand here in this Court is contrary to the stand taken by the Managing Director of the Federation, vide letter dated 9.1.1996 (Annexure-A).
6. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the letter dated 3.12.1995 (Annexure 12) mentions that in her account the further amount payable by the petitioner was only Rs. 8,831.18 except the interest for the period 23.5.1986 to 1.9.1989 about which it is mentioned that it was not the liability of the petitioner to pay the same. This Court fails to appreciate as to how it can be argued that the loan account of the petitioner was not finally settled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that the Administrator of the Federation in his notice dated 7.12.1994, contained in Annexure 18, has admitted that it was on account of lapse on the part of the employee that the claim was filed late with the Life Insurance Corporation and that the interest on account of such delay was not payable by this petitioner and, accordingly, he had issued direction to finalise the account and inform the petitioner about the final accounting, pursuant to which letter dated 3.2.1995, contained in Annexure 12, was issued. Under such circumstances, the respondents have only tried to create confusion by referring to the provisions of the Group Insurance Scheme.
7. From the facts aforementioned, this Court finds that the respondents have acted mala fide in unnecessarily withholding the papers despite the payments made by the petitioner pursuant to the demands and now only with a view to harasing the petitioner have tired to create confusion by raising frivolous dispute as regards the final accounting.
8. The writ application is, thus, allowed with a Court of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) to be paid to the petitioner by the Administrator-cum-Managing Director of the Federation (respondent No. 1). Respondent No. 1 is directed to return the documents relating to the house in question to the petitioner and also pay the amount of cost by 27th September, 2000. He will be at liberty to recover the amount of cost from the persons found responsible for unnecessarily withholding the documents despite the payment made by the petitioner long back in the year 1995 pursuant to Annexure 12.