DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:  40 of 2012]

                                                                          Date of Institution : 23.01.2012

                                                                               Date  of Decision  : 24.05.2012

                                                                                 -----------------------------------------

[1]      Satish Kumar Talwar, r/o H.No. 1069, Sector 15, Chandigarh – 160015.

[2]          Urvashi Talwar w/o Satish Kumar Talwar, H.No. 1069, Sector 15, Chandigarh – 160015.

                                                                   ---Complainants.

VERSUS

[1]      G.E. Money, SCO 72-73, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160008.

[2]      G.E. Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Limited, Registered Office: Unit No. 401-402, 4^th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Towers, E-123, Netaji Subhash Palace, Wazirpur, New Delhi – 110034.

[3]      The Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                   PRESIDENT

                        MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA                             MEMBER

                        SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:  Shri Jagjeet Singh, Adv. proxy for

Sh. Ashwani Talwar, Adv. for the Complainants.

                                OPs No. 1 & 2 ex-parte.

                                Sh. Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the Opposite Party No. 3.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER.

1.                 Complainants have filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that the Complainants had applied for a Home Equity Loan to the tune of Rs.55 lacs in the year 2006 @ 9.25% monthly reducing balance interest. The loan was to be re-paid in 180 installments of Rs.55,606/- each, and accordingly, post-dated cheques were issued.  At the time of issuance of the loan, Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 had kept the original sale deeds in respect of Site No 34(P), Sector 15-B, Chandigarh, which is now H.No.1069, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh. As a matter of fact, these are three registered sale deeds, and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 taking these sale deeds got a lien marked on them from the Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh (Opposite Party No.3) in their favour. A copy of one such sale deed is Annexure C-1.

2.                 That for some reasons, Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint against the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, vide Complaint No. 40 of 2009.  Resultantly, Hon’ble State Commission, disposed off the matter, and directed the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.2 lac for adopting unfair trade practice and Rs.1 lac compensation for causing mental and physical harassment, as well as to calculate the interest payable by the Complainant at the rate of 9.25% till 6.10.2009, and also adjusting the amount paid by them and further directed to re-draw the statements of accounts. Order of the Hon’ble State Commission is at Annexure C-2.  This order was challenged by Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 vide First Appeal No. 28 of 2011, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission, vide its order dated 15.4.2011, which is annexed at Annexure C-3. The Complainants claim that in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble State Commission, and Hon’ble National Commission, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 only remitted a part amount, and in order to lay claim for the remaining a legal notice was served upon them, which is annexed at Annexure C-4.

3.                 The Complainants while serving the legal notice, upon Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, had also requested the Opposite Parties to return the original property documents collected by them, at the time of sanctioning of loan.  It was also requested that the lien marked by the Opposite Party No. 3 in favour of Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, against these property documents, too be got removed by them, while delivering these documents. The copy of the legal notice is annexed at Annexure C-4. The Complainants received a reply to the said legal notice vide Annexure C-5, in which Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, through their Advocate, promised to do the needful, within 15 days time. The communication of Opposite Party No. 3 to Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, intimating about the marking of the lien on the property of the Complainants, is annexed as Annexure C-6.   The Complainants having repeatedly visited the Opposite Parties felt harassed, due to the flat refusal by Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 in returning the original sale deeds when the Complainants registered their urgency about these documents.  The Complainants claim that after having exhausted themselves and not hearing anything, from the side of the Opposite Parties, preferred the present complaint, on the grounds of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

4.                The Complainants have sought the following reliefs: -

[i] Opposite Parties be directed to cancel the lien on the above said 3 registered sale deeds and return them free from all encumbrances;

[ii] Compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of causing mental harassment and agony while not returning the sale deeds;

[iii] Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/- .

5.                 On being properly served, Opposite Parties appeared through Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate. But thereafter, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not put up appearance, thus, were proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 11.4.2012. However, Opposite Party No. 3 was represented through Sh. Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader, and had filed their reply and contested the claim of the Complainants against it.  

6.                 The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have failed to contest the claim of the Complainant; hence, the entire complaint goes unrebutted against Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2.

7.                 Opposite Party No. 3 has contested the claim of the complainants by filing its reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that no cause of action has arisen against it to the Complainants to file the present Complaint.  It is also mentioned that the exercise of marking lien against the property of the Complainants was done on the request of the Complainants and Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2. While doing the needful on the request made to it, the parties were informed vide letter No. 613054-55 dated 18.7.2006, a copy of the same is annexed at Annexure R-1.  It is further submitted that in order to remove the lien on the said property, a no objection certificate/ no due certificate is to be furnished from Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 and as no such document has been produced, the Opposite Party No. 3 cannot be compelled to remove the lien. Thus, requesting that the present complaint be dismissed qua it on the aforesaid grounds.

8.                 On merits, the Opposite Party No.3 has para-wise contested the claim of the Complainants repeating the submissions mentioned in the preliminary objections and claiming that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed against it.

9.                 Parties led their respective evidences.

10.               Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party No.3, the evidence and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the Complainants, as well as the Govt. Pleader for Opposite Party No.3, we have come to the following conclusions.

11.               We feel that the present complaint though superficially seems to be an extension of the earlier complaint No. 40 of 2009, preferred by the Complainants before the Hon’ble State Commission, but however, it is also important to notice that the grievance sought to be redressed by the Complainants, through the present complaint, is with regard to the return of original sale deeds, which are in the custody of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, as well as the requirement of issuance of a no objection certificate/ no due certificate by them, so that the lien marked against these properties is removed by Opposite Party No. 3.

12.               As the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 have failed to contest the claim of the Complainants, by filing their reply/ version, thus, the entire complaint which is supported by an affidavit of the Complainants succeeds against them.  It is also noticed that while replying to the legal notice of the Complainants, the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 had sought fifteen days time, in order to do the needful.  As the entire loan amount stood paid by the Complainants, as per their submissions in the present complaint, we feel there was no reason for Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 to not to act promptly in returning the original title deeds, as well as no objection certificate.   The Complainants, who had registered their urgency, with regard to the requirements of original title deeds, we find Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 deficient in rendering prompt service. The Complainants had actually waited for nearly two months before filing the present complaint, and that too after having registered their grievance through legal notice. It also stands established that the cause of action in favour of the complainants arose after the opposite parties  refused to release the property documents and also hand over the no objection/ no dues certificate. The genuine grievance was also duly registered. The failure in not doing the needful even after their own promise as stated in their reply Annexure-C-5 is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1&2.         

13.               Hence, in the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1&2. The present complaint of the Complainants succeeds against the Opposite Parties 1&2, and the same is allowed qua Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. However, the present complaint is dismissed qua Opposite Party No.3.

14.               The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to issue “No Objection Certificate/ No Due Certificate” along with a communication to Opposite Party No. 3 to effect the cancellation of lien marked on the property documents of the Complainants. Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 are also directed to hand over the original three Registered Sale Deeds to the Complainants. However in case the original title deeds are lost or misplaced at the end of the opposite parties No1&2. In that eventuality opposite parties No1&2 will get such documents made at their own cost, which are legal & valid substitute of the original title deeds. The complainants shall cooperate by signing the relevant documents to facilitate the same.

                    Finding definite deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, they are saddled with the consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental harassment and agony. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.7000/- as litigation costs.  

15.               The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs.10,000/-  from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 23.01.2012, till it is paid, besides costs of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.  

16.               Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced          

24^th May, 2012                                                                                             Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’