Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

            The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking return of original title deeds deposited with the opposite party; return of Rs.7,380.30 ps said to have been paid in excess; Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony besides costs of Rs.3,000/-    

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant on 13-03-01 borrowed Rs.1,64,000/- as housing loan on the guarantee of her husband by depositing her original title deed with the opposite party.   The complainant agreed to pay the amount in installments together with interest.  Due to some financial crisis the complainant was not regular in payment of installments.  While so, the opposite party on 01-10-10 issued a notice to the complainant.   The complainant on 26-05-12 paid the entire amount due and also a sum of Rs.7,380.30 ps in excess.  Inspite of demands and notice dated 17-11-12 the opposite party did not return the original title deed to the complainant.  The said attitude of the opposite party amounted to deficiency of service. The complaint may be allowed.

3.   The opposite party was set exparte on 05-02-14 as it failed to file version through Sri V.V. Sudhakar Rao, advocate (filed vakalat on             17-07-13).  Sri V.V. Sudhakar Rao on 28-10-13 filed memo signed by vakalat holder and it reads as follows:

 “It is further submitted that the above matter posted today for filing version of opposite party.  The opposite party humbly submit that the complainant mentioned in the complaint, opposite party name is “A.P. Co-op. Housing Societies Federation Ltd., rep. by its President, Guntur”.   But, the vakalat holder not a President to the opposite party.   He was President in “The Guntur Co-op. Building Society Ltd., Guntur”.   Due to oversite he filed vakalat on behalf of the opposite party.  Hence, the vakalat holder prays that the Hon’ble Forum, permit the vakalat holder given up his vakalat on behalf of the opposite party and he is no way concerned to the opposite party.   Hence, this memo”.        

4.   Notice in this case was addressed to the President, Andhra Pradesh Co-op Housing Society Federation Limited, H.No.5-19-13, 6/12 Brodipet, Guntur.  One C.V. Koteswara Rao filed vakalat representing as President, A.P. Housing Societies Federation Limited.   The same person received notice and signed on the postal acknowledgment as seen from return of notice.   To the naked eye the signature appearing on the postal acknowledgment, vakalat and memo filed on 28-10-13 belong to the same person.   The said memo did not disclose why the person who filed vakalat received notice in this case       if it did not belong to the opposite party and he is not concerned.   Under those circumstances, the memo filed by the opposite party on 28-10-13 is of no significance in our considered opinion.   

5. Exs.A-1 to A-30 were marked on behalf of complainant.

6.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of                 Rs.7,380.30 ps ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to damages?
4. To what relief?

7.  POINT No.1:-   Ex.A-27 demand notice dated nil was issued by the  Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Housing Federation Society Limited, Regional office, Vijayawada and it disclosed that the complainant was due in a sum of Rs.2,64,769/- as on 01-10-10 in respect of the loan taken by her from the Guntur Co-operative Building Society Limited, Guntur. After Ex.A-27 demand notice the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- under Ex.A-23; Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.A-24; Rs.30,000/- under Ex.A-25; Rs.7,000/- under Ex.A-26 and Rs.76,528/- on                       30-03-11 (as mentioned in Ex.A-1) totaling to Rs.2,73,528/-.

8.   It is the contention of the complainant that the opposite party did not credit the amounts paid by her to the loan account though issued receipts.  One A. Subba Rao on behalf of The Guntur Co-op Building Society Limited issued Exs.A2 to A22 receipts totaling to Rs.2,22,500/-  Those payments covered by Exs.A-2 to A-22 did not find place in  Ex.A-1 slip. In all the complainant paid Rs.4,96,028/- (Rs.2,73,528+Rs.2,22,500) towards the loan mentioned in Ex.A-27 notice.  

9.   The Guntur Co-op Building Society Limited passed receipts Exs.A-2 to A-22 for the amount covered by them.   The person who filed vakalat was the President of The Guntur Co-op Building Society Limited.   Even the loan was sanctioned by The Guntur Co-op Building Society Limited.    In spite of that the person who filed vakalat kept quite simply by filing the memo and even did not say the amount due by the complainant. 

10.   When the complainant has duly paid the installments amounts for the society it is for it to credit those amounts to the loan account of the complainant.  The complainant cannot be blamed for not crediting those payments.   The stoic silence on behalf of the Guntur Co-op Building Society Limited though received notice on behalf of the opposite party corroborated the contention of the complainant.   The averments of the complaint and complainant’s affidavit stood unrebutted neither the opposite party nor The Guntur Co-op Building Society Limited (who filed vakalat) controverted.  Under those circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite party committed deficiency of service.   The complainant having discharged the loan amount is entitled for return of title deeds from the opposite party.  We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant.

11. POINT No.2:-   The complainant alleged that she paid Rs.7,380.30 ps in excess of due amount.   The complainant failed to show the actual amount due by her.  Under those circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for the return of alleged excess payment. We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

12. POINT No.3:-   In view of our findings, on point No.2, the complainant is not entitled to any damages and answer this point also against the complainant.  

13. POINT No.4:   In the result the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to return the original title deed to the complainant.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
3. The opposite party is directed to comply the above order within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 11^th day of March, 2014.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:    NIL   

        PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.