BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 31st day of October, 2006
C.C.No. 23/2006
N. Ramachandra,S/o. N.K. Chowdary,Hindu, aged about 74 years,
H.No. 40-802 H (40/802),Nehru Nagar, Kurnoo-4. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.President,The Kurnool Co-operative
House Building Society Ltd,Prakasam Nagar, Kurnool.
2.Divisional Co-operative Officer,
Krishna Nagar, Divisional,Co-operative Office, Kurnool.
3. The Commissioner
Register of Co-operative Societies,Opp. to Exhibition Grounds,Hyderabad. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri I. Anantharama Sastry, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant Sri K. Sudarsana Guptha, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1, Sri P. Siva sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 called absent set exparte, and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on opposite parties to execute the release deed by canceling the mortgage as effected for obtaining loan of Rs.20,000/- for construction of building, to give clearance by opposite party No.2 and 3 to opposite party No.1, cost for in ordinate delay, costs of the compliant, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the owner of the House bearing door No. 40-802 H situated at Nehru Nagar, Kurnool and obtained a loan of Rs.20,000/- for construction and the said proposed building was mortgage to opposite party No.1. The said loan was discharged in toto but the title deeds relating to the building are not return and the complainant is ready to bear the costs of redemption charges to be incurred in respect of Registration etc. The complainant further submits that since 5 years he has been meeting opposite party No.1 for getting back his title deeds free from encumbrance and also got issued notices threatening heavy costs and approaching appropriate forum, even to the said notices there was no response and the complainant was driven to the forum for redressal.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) letter dated 22.10.01 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 marking copy to the complainant (2) letter dated 19.11.2003 by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 marking copy to the complainant (3) letter dated 16.9.2005 by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 marking copy to the complainant (4) legal notice dated 30.8.2005 issued by complainant to opposite party No.1 (5) postal receipt bearing No. 3065 dated 30.8.2005 for sending Ex A.4 (6) postal receipt dated 30.8.2005 for sending Ex A.4 (7) certificate of posting dated 30.8.2005 to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 (8) letter dated 28.11.2005 of complainant to opposite party No.3 copy marked to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 and (9) postal receipt dated 28.11.05 for sending Ex A.8, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in-reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.9 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties 1 and 2 and suitably replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite parties 1 and 2.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.3 remained absent through out case proceedings. The opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version (counter) of opposite party No.1 submits that the complainant was given loan for house construction in the year 1963 with simple interest at 5 ½ percent for 20 years on yearly basis. The complainant paid the said amount due to the society and the release deed of mortgage is received on 1.4.2006 and registered on 3.4.2006 as document No. 4395. As no relief is claimed against opposite party No.1 hon’ble Forum may kindly close the complaint without costs.
6. The written version of opposite party No.2 submits that the loan was sanctioned by the Commissioner, State Archieves Taranaka, Hyderabad and all the documents were handed over to the Commissioner and opposite party No.2 is only a mediator between opposite party No.1 and the Commissioner Archives. The complainant issued legal notice to the Commissioner Archives but did not joined him as an opposite party in this case and the case may be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party No.2 further submits that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (d) of C.P Act 1986, and there is no consumer disputes between the complainant and the opposite parties. It further submits that the complainant paid loan amount to opposite party No.2 in the year 2001 and complaint is filed in the year 2006, hence the complaint is barred by limitation.
7. It is further submitted the complainant obtained loan for a sum of Rs.16,000/- and not 20,000/- as mentioned in complaint averments and the complainant paid the loan amount in the year 2001 and opposite party No.2 addressed a letter dt 7.1.2002 to the Commissioner Archives for release of documents and on 27.11.2002 the Commissioner sent all documents except release deed. The opposite party No.2 handed over all the documents except release deed to opposite party No.1 by letter dated 6.1.2003 hence there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.2. However, the release deed was issued by opposite party No.2 on 29.3.06 with the permission from his Head Office and the complainant received the release order and submitted to Registration Department. Lastly alleges that no cause of action or any relief is sought against opposite party No.2 and 3 and as per Cooperative Societies Act separate tribunal constituted for any dispute between the member and the society, hence the forum as no jurisdiction to entertain this case of the complainant and hence seeks for the dismissal of complainant with exemplary costs.
8.In substantiation of his case the opposite parties relied on the following documents Viz (1) Original mortgaged deed dated 22.10.1963 (2) office copy of letter dated 22.10.01 issued by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 copy to complainant (3) xerox copy of letter dated 22.10.01 of complainant to opposite party No.1 (4) letter dated 30.11.01 addressed by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 (5) notice of complainant dated 22.11.2002 to opposite party No.1 and 2 (6) reminder letter dated 13.2.2003 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 (7) reminder letter dated 19.11.2003 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 (8) letter dated 27.12.2002 of the Commissioner Archeves to opposite party No.2 (9) letter dated 6.1.2003 addressed to opposite party No.1 by opposite party No.2 (10) letter dated 7.1.2003 of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 and (11) release deed dt 29.3.2006 issued by opposite party No.1 and 2, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.11 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party No.1 and 2 caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitably replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
9. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:
10. The case of the complainant is that he obtained a loan of Rs.20,000/- from opposite party No.1 for construction of building by mortgaging the said proposed building and depositing title deeds with opposite parties. The said loan amount was paid in toto to opposite parties in the year 2001, even after repayment of said loan amount the opposite parties did not release the title deeds. The complainant in his complaint averments alleging that title deeds are not returned, but in the relief portion seeks relief against opposite party No.1 to execute release deed by canceling the mortgage effected earlier. Hence, the return of title deeds sought for by the complainant cannot be ordered. But as against to it the opposite party No.1 alleges that released deed of mortgage is received by them on 1.4.2006 from opposite party No.2 therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part. The opposite party No.2 alleges that the loan was sanctioned by the Commissioner State Archives Tarnaka, Hyderabad and the documents are deposited with the Commissioner, and the commissioner sent all the documents to opposite party No.2 on 27.11.02 except release deed and the said documents are sent to opposite party No.1 on 6.1.2003 vide Ex B.9. The opposite party No.2 with permission of his higher authorities issued release deed dated 29.3.2006 vide Ex B.11. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on their part.
11. The complainant relied on the following citations of A.P. State Commission between the Branch Manager District Co-operative Central Bank Tallavaru Vs Chakuri Pattabhiramayya and other reported in 1998 (1) CPR Page 152, it was held that when entire loan was paid and the title deeds are not traced opposite parties are directed to issue a certificate stating that loan amount discharged and awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation, with the above position of law the citations relied by opposite party (1) Gujarat State Commission between Phiroz Savaksha Green Vs Plue Fountain Enterprises and others reported in I (1994) CPJ 334, (2) Madhya Pradesh State Commission between Vurhanpur Cloth Corporation Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in III (1995) CPJ 239 (3) Tamil Nadu State Commission between Vinayaga Agencies Vs G.P Seethapathy and others reported in (2006)CPJ Page 583 and (4) Panjab State Commission between K.K. Foams Industries and another Vs Panjab Financial Corporation reported in 2004 C.P.J page 41, as relevance for appreciation in this case.
12. To sum up, the complainant sought in this complaint relief against opposite party No.1 to executed release deed and the release deed was executed by opposite party No.1 and2 pendentlite of this case. Hence, the said relief does not require any further direction except the return of said release deed (Ex B.11) to the complainant on expiry of appeal time, as the second relief is ambiguous the said relief is rejected, as the released deed was executed on 29.3.2006 pendentilite of this case and as the latch is on the part of opposite parties in executing release deed, driven the complainant to the forum for seeking relief, hence the opposite parties jointly and severally are liable to pay compensation for mental agony and costs of this case at Rs.2,000/- each.
13. Consequently, the case of the complaint his allowed ordering the return of release deed dt 29.3.2006 (Ex B.11) to the complainant on expiry of appeal time and direction to the opposite parties with joint and several liability to pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- each as compensation and costs of this case within a month of receipt of this order, in default the opposite parties jointly and severally are liable to pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 31st day of October, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1. Letter dated 22.10.01 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 marking
copy to the complainant.
Ex A.2 Letter dated 19.11.2003 by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2
marking copy to the complainant.
Ex A.3 Letter dated 16.9.2005 by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1
marking copy to the complainant.
Ex A.4 Legal notice dated 30.8.2005 issued by complainant to opposite party No.1. Ex A.5 Postal receipt bearing No. 3065 dated 30.8.2005 for sending Ex A.4.
Ex A.6 Postal receipt dated 30.8.2005 for sending Ex A.4.
Ex A.7 Certificate of posting dated 30.8.2005 to opposite party No.1 and opposite
party No.2.
Ex A.8 Letter dated 28.11.2005 of complainant to opposite party No.3 copy marked
to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2.
Ex A.9 postal receipt dated 28.11.05 for sending Ex A.8.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Original mortgaged deed dated 22.10.1963.
Ex B.2 Office copy of letter dated 22.10.01 issued by opposite party No.1 to opposite
party No.2 copy to complainant.
Ex B.3 Xerox copy of letter dated 22.10.01 of complainant to opposite party No.1.
Ex B.4 letter dated 30.11.01 addressed by opposite party No.1 to opposite party
No.2.
Ex B.5 Notice of complainant dated 22.11.2002 to opposite party No.1 and 2.
ExB.6 Reminder letter dated 13.2.2003 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party
No.2.
Ex B.7 Reminder letter dated 19.11.2003 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party
No.2.
Ex B.8 Letter dated 27.12.2002 of the Commissioner Archives to opposite party
No.2.
Ex B.9 Letter dated 6.1.2003 addressed to opposite party No.1 by opposite party
No.2.
Ex B.10 Letter dated 7.1.2003 of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1.
Ex B.11 Release deed dt 29.3.2006 issued by opposite party No.2
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1.Sri I. Anantharama Sastry, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.Sri K. Sudarsana Guptha, Advocate, Kurnool.
3.Sri P. Siva sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
4.The Commissioner, Register of Co-operative Societies, Opp. to Exhibition Grounds, Hyderabad.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
