At, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. N. RAJASEKAR
By, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.M. MURUGESSHAN
For the Appellant: A.P. Athithan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, S. Saravanakumar, R2, Subramanian, Advocates.
(Madurai) (Circuit Bench)
N. Rajasekar, Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal has been preferred by the complaint under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Forum, Madurai made in C.C.NO.181/2011, dated 27.01.2016, allowing the complaint, directing the appellant/ complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 21,668/-within 8 weeks to the 2nd opposite party who was directed to issue a No Due Certificate to the complainant regarding the housing loan availed by the complainant.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Madurai.
3. Appellant is represented by his counsel. The order of the District Forum and other connected records are perused. A memo filed on 21.01.2020 by the appellant/complainant is also perused. The memo was posted to 27.01.2020 for filing objection if any by other side. But, objection is not filed to the above memo till today.
4. On perusal of records, we find that the appellant, being the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 before the District Forum, Madurai alleging deficiency in service by stating that while he was working in the Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation in Dindigul, availed a housing loan of Rs. 1,85,000/- from the 2nd opposite party through the 1st opposite party and he was paying monthly installments of Rs. 4,000/- from his salary for the period from 01.06.2005 to 01.07.2008 and thereby in total he had paid Rs. 1,50,661/- and when he retired from service he paid Rs. 89,339/- from his gratuity amount as full and final settlement subsequently when the complainant required for No Due Certificate with regard to his housing loan, the opposite parties refused to do so claiming further amount and hence the complainant lodged a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Madurai claiming for direction to the opposite parties to issue "No Due Certificate" and also to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as costs and the District Forum after hearing both sides, passed the order directing the opposite parties to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant regarding the housing loan availed by him on payment of Rs. 21,668/-by the complainant and no compensation was awarded. Aggrieved against that order the complainant filed this appeal before this Commission praying for setting aside the order of the District Forum.
5. While the appeal was pending for enquiry, the appellant/complainant filed a memo on 21.01.2020 stating that he had complied with the original order of the District Forum, Madurai made in C.C.No.181/2011 dated 27.01.2016 by paying a sum of Rs. 21,668/- with the 2nd opposite party and thereby he satisfied the award passed by the District Forum and thus he complied with the order passed against him by the District Forum and subsequently, the 2nd opposite party closed the housing loan account of the complainant and issued a letter to the complainant in this regard and thereby the appeal may be dismissed without cost. Along with the memo, he submitted a letter dated 23.10.2019 written by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant informing that the loan account of the complainant was closed as the complainant repaid the loan amount in full with all dues and thereby no amount was due from the complainant.
6. Therefore, from the above memo filed by the appellant/complainant and the letter dated 23.10.2019 written by the 2nd opposite party, we find that the complainant has satisfied the award passed by the District Forum, Madurai made in C.C.No.181/2011, dated 27.01.2019 by paying the award amount of Rs. 21,668/- and thereby since the award was satisfied, the appeal becomes infructuous and theref
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ore we are of the view that this appeal may be dismissed as infructuous. 7. Accordingly, the memo filed by the appellant is recoded and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed as infructuous without costs. 8. In view of the memo filed by the appellant/complainant the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. 9. The memo filed by the appellant/ complainant shall be a part and parcel of this order.