ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD vs SUNDARAN

OPPOSITE party in O.P. 410/2001 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur are the appellants. Complainant''s grievance for which he wanted redressal was, he availed a housing loan of Rs. 1,65,000/- that was the amount sanctioned by the opposite party, first instalment was Rs. 35,000/- and after deducting service charges complainant was given Rs. 33,250/- and it was followed by the second instalment. The instalments were given after deducting service charge, and the complainant is liable to pay only Rs. 1,65,000/- but when the complainant went for closing the loan, he realised that the principal amount is Rs. 1,75,000/-. He alleged deficiency in service and, therefore, wanted direction. The opposite party maintained that in fact the amount due was Rs. 1,75,000/- and as stated in the version balance is due from the complainant, they wanted dismissal of the complaint.

BEFORE the District Forum complainant produced Exbts. P1 to P5 and the opposite party produced Exbts. R1 to R7. On a consideration of the said material the District Forum made the impugned direction to return Rs. 10,000/-. It is the said direction that is under challenge. Learned Counsel urged that it is not true or correct to say that the complainant was disbursed only Rs. 1,65,000/-. According to the learned Counsel District Forum did not give due importance to Exbt. R7 as well as Exbt. R1, had due consideration been given to the same, District Forum could not have reached the conclusion which it did.

We perused the order. In the order the District Forum states that the opposite party was directed to produce the account in respect of loan amount to see the amount paid to the complainant; but they did not produce the account in respect of the said loan, instead they produced Exbts. R6 and R7 photocopy of calculation made by the opposite party. The District Forum proceeded to hold against the opposite party on the ground that the non-production of the accounts in respect of complainant''s loan is a deficiency in service. The District Forum finds that the documents were suppressed.

HAVING regard to what transpired before the District Forum as is stated in para 5 of the order, an adverse inference can justifiably be drawn against the appellant/opposite parties, when relevant documents are in possession of particular party and the same is necessary for an effective and proper adjudication, and the said party withholds documents without any just or acceptable reason, an adverse inference can be drawn and the adverse inference in such circumstance, would be to the effect, had those documents been produced the same would have gone against the party who withholds the same. HAVING regard to the said position of law, the conclusion reached by the District Forum cannot be faulted. We see nothing to interfere, appeal fails, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.