CHELLAPPAN V Vs. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum. His complaint was allowed by the District Forum holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party-respondent No. 1, Kerala Financial Corporation (Corporation for short). Second opposite party-respondent No. 2 is District Insurance Officer. No relief was granted against the second opposite party. Both the complainant and the Corporation filed appeals before the State Commission. While the appeal of the complainant was dismissed that of the Corporation was allowed. It was directed by the State Commission that the complaint was not maintainable and the questions raised by the complainant had to be agitated before appropriate Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the State Commission complainant has come before us in revision.

(2.) Corporation on 17.12.1990 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,64,800/- for purchase of a Tata Diesel Engine vehicle. It was a lorry and after the purchase by the complainant it was hypothecated with the Corporation and equitable mortgage was also executed by the complainant by deposit of title deeds. The sanctioned amount was to be paid in 55 instalments but the complainant defaulted and when the arrears accumulated the vehicle was seized by the Corporation. Complainant filed writ petition in the Kerala High Court and on that a direction was issued for him to pay Rs. 50,000/- and then to pay the balance in 15 monthly instalments. Complainant paid only Rs. 50,000/-, got the vehicle released but again defaulted in making payment of the instalments. This led the Corporation to again seize the vehicle and was later released on payment of Rs. 60,000/- made by the complainant along with post-dated cheques for the balance. These cheques were presented for payment and were dishonoured. Again the lorry was seized on 30.9.1997 after the term of the period for loan expired on 10.12.1995. While the lorry was kept at certain premises under the care of security guard, it was set on fire by certain miscreants on 13.11.1997. A police report was lodged and the matter is pending investigation. Corporation at the same time proceeded against the complainant for enforcement of the collateral security of the mortgaged property. Against that proceedings complainant filed a suit in the Sub-Court for injunction for stay of recovery proceedings. That suit is still pending. For the third time complainant again moved the Court on 27.8.1998 and a direction was issued to the Corporation to dispose of the representation filed by the complainant. After discussion a balance amount of Rs. 2,89,064/- was due as outstanding on 31.7.1998 and for which demand notice was issued. Yet again a writ petition was filed in the High Court when the High Court directed the complainant to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- before 30.11.1998 and though the complainant got extension of time, he did not remit the amount and instead went to the District Forum and filed a complaint out of which these proceedings have arisen.

(3.) Various objections were raised by the Corporation as to the maintainability of the complaint itself. The aforesaid facts would show that it could clearly be said that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Corporation and the Corporation in every step wanted to help the complainant. Yet the District Forum directed that it was the Corporation who was to pay a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- to the complainant which was after deducting the amount of Rs. 2,29,813/-. This amount was to be returned with interest @ 18% per annum for the month of October, 1997 and then 15% per annum from 1.11.1997 till payment. Corporation was also burdened with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. As regards the tax on the vehicle it was held by the District Forum that it was to be paid by the complainant upto the period of 30.9.1997 and thereafter by the Corporation.