Decided on January 22,2010

Manager, Ksfe Thaliparambu Appellant
T J Joseph Thaliparambu Taluk Respondents


- (1.)THE appellant is the opposite party/KSFE, Thaliparamba in OP.332/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/ - as compensation and Rs.2000/ - towards cost.
(2.)THE case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber in the chitty No.2/96 as chital No.33 of the opposite party. Sala of the chitty was 2,00,000/ - and the monthly installment is Rs.1500/ - and the complainant had remitted 56 instalments. As there was provision for availing loan from the chitty the complainant availed loan of 96,000/ - on 13.1.1997. The interest rate on the loan amount was 21%. At the time of availing the loan the complainant and his wife mortgaged their property worth more than rupees 4 lakhs. The chitty was prized on 5.9.99 and the prize amount was Rs.1,40,000/ -. The complainant had requested to adjust the chitty amount towards the loan account. Subsequently a lawyer notice dated 9.2.2000 was also sent in this regard. The contention of the opposite party that the mortgaged property has been revalued is meant only to harass the complainant. The subscriber is entitled to get the chitty amount 45 days after the bid. The complainant has paid more than half of the chitty instalments and the paid amount was not adjusted in the loan account. The complainant has to pay exorbitant amount as interest. For the chitty amount no interest was given. Alleging deficiency in service he has claimed a sum of Rs.75000/ - as compensation.
(3.)THE opposite party has admitted that at the time of availing loan the complainant had offered security of property which consisted of one acre of land and building and he prized the chitty when he had remitted only 44 instalments and the further liability would work out to Rs.1,12,000/ -. The property was valued at Rs.2 lakh on 11.11.96. On 6.3.2000 the complainant and his wife filed an application to accept the above property as security for the chitty amount. The property has to be valued afresh. The opposite party decided to get further security for Rs.56,000/ -. The complainant has not remitted interest on loan amount from 1.2.97. It is contended there is no violation of the terms of the variyola and no deficiency in service.
The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1; Exts.P1 to P4 and R1 to R4.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.