JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. The complainant/respondent no. 1 Dinesh Chandra Joshi entered into an agreement with the petitioner Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Awas Sangh Ltd., Senani Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Lucknow Development Authority, whereby a loan of Rs.62,000/- was disbursed to the complainant through the society for purchasing a house from Lucknow Development Authority. The payment was released directly to Lucknow Development Authority. The loan was payable in installments alongwith interest @ 13.25% per annum. The complainant after paying 47 installments, made a one - time payment of the balance amount to the society and obtained a No Dues Certificate from the society on 15.01.2001. After obtaining the No Dues Certificate from the society, the complainant requested the petitioner to release the mortgage on his property. A copy of the No Dues Certificate taken from the society was annexed to the letter sent by him to the petitioner. In February 2001, the petitioner released the documents of the house of the complainant comprising the Sale Deed, Lease Deed etc. However, on 21.10.2003, the petitioner sent a demand notice to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs.2,31,222.64/- from him. The aforesaid demand was followed by a recovery certificate issued against the complainant who made payment of the aforesaid amount under protest, on 26.07.2007. Thereafter, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading the petitioner as well as the society as the OPs in the complaint. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which claimed that the loan amount had not been deposited with it by the society and therefore, the complainant did not stand discharged from his obligation to pay the loan amount with interest. The petitioner however, did not deny having released the property documents of the complainant on receipt of a letter from him alongwith the No Dues Certificate issued by the society. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 18.10.2014, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.2,81,135/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The society was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 5. It is not in dispute that as per the agreement executed between the complainant, the society, the petitioner Sangh and Lucknow Development Authority, the loan was repayable by the complainant to the society, alongwith agreed interest, in equated monthly installments. This is also not in dispute that the complainant had been making payment of the monthly installments to the society. This is also not in dispute that the complainant, after paying 47 monthly installments, paid the balance amount to the society in lump-sum and thereafter, a No Dues Certificate was issued to him by the society. By making payment to the society, in the aforesaid manner, the complainant discharged his contractual obligations under the agreement between the parties. Therefore, it was not open to the petitioner Sangh either to demand any amount from the complainant or to issue a certificate for recovery of the loan amount and interest which had accrued on that amount. If the society despite having taken the loan amount with interest from the complainant did not deposit the same with the petitioner Sangh, the remedy lies in the petitioner Sangh recovering the said amount from the society in accordance with law. It could not have sought to recover the same from the complainant, despite his having already paid the same to the society as per his contractual obligation. 6. As noted earlier, the complainant after obtaining the No Dues Certificate from the society, forwarded the same to the petitioner Sangh alongwith a request to release his property documents. It is also not in dispute that the property documents of the complainant were thereafter released by the petitioner Sangh. Thus, acting upon the payment made by the complainant to the society and the No Dues Certificate issued to him by the society, the petitioner Sangh released the property documents of the complainant thereby acknowledging that the loan amount had been paid with interest. If the said amount had not been paid, the petitioner ought not to have released the property documents of the complainant. The petitioner could not have issued the recovery certificate despite the complainant having already paid the loan amount to the society, having obtained the No Dues Certificate from the society and then having got the property documents released from the petitioner on the strength of the aforesaid No Dues Certificate. Therefore, the petitioner was clearly deficient in rendering services to the complainant by coercing him to pay Rs.2,31,222.64/-. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no good reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Fora below. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. It is made clear that the petitioner Sangh shall be entitled to recover the amount in question from the society in accordance with law. |
