K.B. Gawali, Member:
1. This appeal is preferred by the original complainant against the judgment and order 30/08/2008 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum Jalgaon in CC.No.141/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding the respondents to have committed deficiency in service. The respondent No. 1 to 6 who are the office bearers of the society namely Shri. Gajanan Grihataran Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon are the original opponents Nos. 1 to 6 whereas the respondent No. 6 is the original opponent No. 7 which is the Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai branch Jalgaon. For better understanding the appellant is hereinafter referred as œcomplainant? and the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 together as the œopponent society? and the respondent No. 6 as the œopponent Housing Finance Corporation?.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :-
That, the complainant had obtained loan of Rs 72,000/- for the purchase of house from the opponent housing finance corporation in the year 1992 through the opponent society. Accordingly, he had entered in to an agreement with the opponents. As per the terms and condition of the said agreement the loan amount was to be repaid in 20 years by way of tri-monthly installments of Rs 2945/- i.e. total 80 installments. It was contended by the complainant that he use to pay the installments regularly to the said co-operative society and on 08/01/2000 he had the balance amount of Rs 67,000/- through cheque bearing No. 364163 dated 08/01/2000 drawn on the Corporation Bank, Jalgaon through the said co-operative society to the housing corporation. Accordingly, opponent co-operative society issued him œNo dues certificate? on 08/01/2000 and on 17/08/2000. However, inspite of repayment of entire loan amount, the opponent co-operative society did not transfer the amount of loan installments repaid by him to the opponent State Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, branch Jalgaon. Therefore, opponent Housing Finance Corporation having outstanding loan amount of Rs 1,07,954.48 started recovery proceedings U/Sec. 101 of the Cooperative Society Act, 1960 against the complainant. That, further the said opponent finance corporation issued the attachment order dated 22/09/2003 inspite of his request made by him vide his letter dated 28/03/2003. That, the complainant though gave information about the repayment of entire loan, the opponent Finance Corporation again vide order dated 29/01/2004 issued attachment of his house therefore to avoid the action of attachment of his house and also his defamation he deposited the said amount of Rs 1,07,954.48 in 7 instalments.
3. It was contended that although he had paid the entire loan amount to the housing finance corporation through the opponent society he was unnecessary required to pay additional amount of Rs 1,07,954.48 and due to attachment order issued by the opponent finance corporation he had to bear mental harassment. He therefore filed complaint before the Dist. Consumer Forum seeking direction to the opponent co-operative society and its office bearers to refund the amount of Rs 1,07,954.48 along with interest jointly and severally which he had deposited to the opponent finance corporation. In addition he had also sought direction to the opponent society along with its office bearers to pay him compensation Rs 50,000/- towards mental harassment as well as defaming his social status.
4. The opponent No. 1 by name Shri. R.G.Mandore Managaer of the said co-operative society and the opponent Nos. 4 and 5 who were the office bearers of the opponent society appeared before the Dist. Consumer Forum and by way of their written version denied the claim of the complainant . It was contended that the NOC dated 08/01/2000 which was given to the complainant was limited to extent of the date of said certificate. Even the another NOC certificate issued on 17/01/2002 also meant the same thing that he had no outstanding dues till that date. However, the complainant misinterpreted the said certificate, and claimed to have cleared the entire loan amount. In fact whatever amount was deposited by the complainant against the said loan with the opponent society it had transferred the entire amount to the housing finance corporation. However, he was still in outstanding loan of Rs 1,07,954.48 and since he did not pay the same, the action U/Sec. 101 of Co-operative Society Act was rightly under taken by the opponent Housing Finance Corporation. Accordingly, the complainant when cleared entire balance amount Rs 1,07,954.48 he was issued NOC by the Housing Finance Corporation as on 02/03/2006. It was therefore contended by this opponent that no excess amount i.e. Rs 1,09,754.48 was recovered from the complainant and therefore the question of making refund of the same did not arise as claimed by the complainant.
5. The Dist. Consumer Forum after considering evidence on record and after hearing the parties by way of majority passed the impugned judgment and order allowing the complaint partly and directed the opponent society including its office bearers to pay to the complainant jointly and severally compensation of Rs 3000/- towards mental torture and Rs 2000/- as cost of the complaint. It is held by the Dist. Consumer Forum that the complainant by way of compromise with the opponent finance corporation deposited the balance loan amount Rs 1,07,954.48 in six installments . It is further held by the Dist. Consumer Forum that had their been no outstanding dues of Rs 1,07,954.48, the complainant would not have deposited the same in installments as were allowed by the opponent Housing Finance Corporation. Hence, it is held that the complainant was not entitled for refund of the said amount claimed by him. However, it is further held that since the opponent society issued NOC without making it clear that the said certificate pertained only to the outstanding loan till the date of said certificate and therefore he had to sustain mental harassment etc. and accordingly allowed the compensation of Rs 3000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs 2000/- cost of the complaint.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order the present appeal is filed by the original complainant for refund of the same Rs 1,07,954.48 alleging that the said amount was paid in excess to the Housing Finance Corporation. This appeal was finally heard on 24/12/2013.Adv.Shri.S.A.Pradhan was present for the appellant . However, none was present for the respondents inspite of service of notice and hence they were proceeded ex-parte. Adv.Shri. Pradhan for the appellant submitted his written notes of arguments. We also heard him finally and the appeal was reserved for judgment and order .
7. The Ld. Counsel Shri. Pradhan by way of his arguments submitted that the complainant although had repaid the entire lone amount through the opponent society, he was required to pay the additional amount Rs 1,07,954.48 to the opponent Finance Corporation. He contented that whatever amount were repaid by the complainant to the society they were not credited in his respective account maintained by the opponent Finance Corporation and therefore he was unnecessarily required to pay the said amount of Rs 1,07,954.48. He made specific reference to the NOC dated 08/01/2000 issued by the opponent society and contended that they were no outstanding dues after that date against the complainant . He also contended that the opponent society by its letter dated 17/08/2001, 18/10/2002 and 11/03/2003 had intimated to the opponent State Finance Corporation that the complainant had cleared dues and hence no action regarding attachment of his house property be taken. However, the opponent Finance Corporation inspite of these letters had issued the attachment order and therefore the complainant just to avoid the attachment and his defamation in the society paid the said amount Rs 1,07,954.48 to the opponent Housing Finance Corporation and obtained NOC dated 09/03/2007. He therefore contended that since the amount Rs 1,07,954.48 was recovered in excess of the loan amount the complainant was entitled for its refund. The Ld. Counsel Shri. Pradhan therefore contended that the Dist. Consumer Forum has not appreciated the facts and evidence brought on record by the complainant and failed to allow the claim of the complainant regarding refund of the excess amount Rs 1,07,954.48 paid by him to the State Finance Corporation and even the compensation towards the mental agony is awarded with meger amount. He therefore requested to allow the appeal and to grant the claim of the complainant as per his complaint.
8. We have carefully gone through the papers i.e. the complaint of the complainant , written version filed by the opponent , the statement showing the repayment of loan, NOC issued by the opponent society and the written notes of arguments filed by the counsel for the complainant . The only question which arises for our consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to receive the refund of Rs 1,07,954.48 as claimed by him. It is an admitted fact that the repayment of loan was tobe made in 80 tri monthly installments each installments amounting to Rs 2945/-. By calculating the total value of the repayment of loan works out to Rs 2,35,600/- ( 80 x Rs 2945 ). It is revealed from the perusal of the record that the complainant has repaid the loan amount as per following details.
i. For the period from 07/01/2992 to 26/11/1999 Rs 67735/-
ii. Lumsum amount paid by way of cheque bearing Rs 67000/- No. 364163 dtd. 08/01/2000
iii. Amount paid to the opponent Housing Finance Rs107954.48 Corporation in all the installments Total Rs242689.48 Say Rs 242689)
9. As mentioned above, as per the agreement the total repayment value of the loan is Rs 2,35,600/-, against which the complainant has paid total Rs 2,42,689/- i.e. he has paid excess amount Rs 7089/-. Thus excess amount Rs 7089/- can be taken to have paid towards the delay payment charges etc. Therefore, it reveals that there is no excess amount Rs 1,07,954.48 as claimed by the complainant to have paid against repayment of loan, as held by the Dist. Consumer Forum. The complainant had paid the amount Rs 1,07,954/- in all six installments after getting the consent of the opponent Finance Corporation. Thus it is very clear that there is no excess amount paid by the complainant and hence he is not entitled for the refund of Rs 1,07,954/- as claimed by him.
10. The complainant appears to have misinterpreted the NOC issued by the opponent society to the complainant. As explained by the society in its written version the said certificate issued on 08/01/2000, 17/08/2001 and 18/10/2002 are in token of No dues certificate till that date. However, the complainant has misconstrued the said certificate and contended that the entire amount of loan was paid by him. In fact the society would not have issued such No dues certificates on different dates. Hence the claim of the complainant for refund of the amount of Rs 1,07,954/- is baseless and can not be sustained.
11. As regards the amount of compensation towards the mental harassment etc. as the opponents have been recovered no excess amount they can not be made liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the complainant . In fact it is only because the complainant did not make the repayment on time, the opponent Finance Corporation was required to take action U/Sec. 101 of Maharashtra State Co-operative Society Act. Hence, the complainant is also not entitled for any additional compensation towards the mental harassment etc. However, as the compensation awarded by the majority judgment of the Dist. Consumer Forum and the same has not been challenged by the opponent, we do not interfere the same.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and observation we find no substance in the appeal filed by the complainant. Hence, we have no option but to dismiss the same. In the result we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.