Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he availed housing loan of Rs.6,75,000/- from the O.P. in the year 2007 for purchase of Flat No.302 at Niraj Park CHS Limited, Bhayander(West).  The complainant deposited documents with the O.P. to secure the interest of the O.P.  The complainant was paying installments.  However, he suffered loss therefore he decided to sell the flat.  The O.P. asked the complainant to clear the housing loan therefore the complainant requested the purchaser to deposit the amount in his account with the O.P.  The complainant requested the O.P. to debit the amount in his loan account and clear the loan account.  The purchaser deposited the amount and thereafter the flat was sold.  The complainant was bound to give the possession and documents to the purchaser.  In spite of repayment of loan amount, the O.P. refused to return the documents. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opponent to return the documents.  He has also claimed compensation.

2)                The O.P. remained absent though served. Therefore the matter was proceeded ex parte against the O.P. 

3)                The complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence and documents in support of his complaint.  According to the complainant, entire loan amount is repaid to the O.P. but the O.P. refused to return the documents.   This fact is not disputed by the O.P. by challenging the contention of the complainant. If the entire loan amount is repaid, the O.P. has no right to retain the documents of the complainant.  The complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of our High Court in the case of Shri Surendra Laxman Nikose –Versus- Chief Manager and Authorised Officer decided on 14^th August, 2013, reported in 2013(6) All MR 38.  The Hon’ble High Court has laid down that the lien can not be extended by a Banker for any purpose after the general balance of account has been cleared.  In the instant complaint before us, it is not disputed that the entire loan amount is repaid and therefore lien of the O.P. came to an end.  The O.P. can not extend the lien for any other purpose.  Therefore, the O.P. is bound to return the documents to the complainant.

4)                In spite of requests, the O.P. failed to return the documents thereby the complainant suffered mental agony.  The O.P. is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony.  The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs.  It is excessive claim. We think compensation of Rs.10,000/- will suffice the purpose.  Besides this, the complainant is entitled for the cost of this proceeding of Rs.2,000/- Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.

2. The O.P. is directed to return the documents of the complainant i.e. Agreement for Sale dated 31^st October, 1994 and 22^nd June, 2007 as claimed by the complainant.

3. The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony.

4. The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand Only) to the complainant towards cost of this proceeding.

5. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.

6. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

    

   Pronounced

   Dated 20^th May, 2014