BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:210 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 17.03.2010.
Date of Decision:26.05.2016
M/s Goyal Udyog through now Aditya Goyal, Director, Aditya Filaments Pvt. Limited, Plot No. 1, Sector-21, Industrial Area, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Managing Director, Haryana Financial Corporation S.C.O. 16 to 18, Sector-18, Chandigarh.
- Haryana Financial Corporation, Vijay Nagar, Bhiwani, now shifted at Circular Road, Near Labour Chowk, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Jitender Dhariwal, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri Mahipal Tanwar, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he took Rs. 14,54,000/- as loan from the opposite party in the year 1995. It is alleged that the same was deposited within time and the complainant asked to release his documents No Objection Certificate regarding the above said loan but the opposite party denied to release the No Objection Certificate and documents. It is alleged that the opposite party was served with a notice dated 15.12.2009 in this respect but to no result. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant in this complaint has sought the refund of the amount of Rs. 63,223/- charged from it as loading charges alongwith interest, issuance of clearance certificate, return of all the documents and payment of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. It is submitted that all the documents have already been returned to the complainant vide letter dated 22.03.2010. It is submitted that the clearance certificate has also been issued on 22.03.2010 and the compensation amount of Rs. 2000/- has also been paid to the complainant vide DD No. 108899 dated 23.03.2010 drawn on Corporation Bank Rohtak. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-14 along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant paid the dues of the OPs, but the OP did not issue the no objection certificate and release the security documents to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint No. 471 of 1998 filed by the complainant against the OPs which was decided in favour of the complainant on 10.07.2002 and then appeal was filed by the OPs against the order of District Forum before Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana. The appeal of the OPs was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana vide order dated 30.07.2009. During the pendency of the appeal the complainant deposited Rs. 63,223/- with the OPs under protest on 19.02.2007 vide letter Annexure C-1 for the release of the security documents and the issue of no objection certificate and the payment of the subsidy, subject to the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana. The Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana vide order dated 30.07.2009 upheld the order dated 10.07.2002 of this District Forum, vide which it was held that the complainant has deposited the whole loan amount alongwith interest but the Ops have not issued the clearance certificate and directed the OPs to issue the clearance certificate and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. He further submitted that despite deposit of the said amount 63,223/- by the complainant on 19.02.2007 but the OP did not release the documents to the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant cannot claim Rs. 63,223/- from the OPs that it has become time barred because the said amount was deposited by the complainant with OPs on 20.02.2007 and the present complaint has been filed on 17.03.2010. He further submitted that the clearance certificate and all the documents have been returned to the complainant on 22.03.2010.
8. In the context of the pleadings and arguments, we have examined the relevant material on the record. Admittedly, the complaint No. 471 of 1998 of the complainant filed against the Ops was allowed by this District Forum vide order dated 10.07.2002 and it was held that the entire amount of loan alongwith interest has been deposited by the complainant with the OPs and the OPs have not issued clearance certificate and the Ops were directed to issue the clearance certificate to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost. This order was challenged by the OPs before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana. The Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana vide order dated 30.07.2009 in FA No. 1890 of 2002 dismissed the appeal of the Ops and upheld the order dated 17.07.2002 passed by this District Forum.
9. As per the contention of the complainant he deposited Rs. 63,223/- on 19.02.2007 under protest with the OPs to get back documents etc., subject to the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, in the appeal filed by the Ops. But the Ops did not return the documents to the complainant. The Ops returned the documents to the complainant on 22.03.2010, only after dismissal of their appeal by the State Commission vide order dated 30.07.2009. The amount in question was deposited by the complainant with the Ops on 19.02.2007 under protest, subject to decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in the appeal of the Ops. The appeal of the Ops have been dismissed on 30.07.2009 hence the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 30.07.2009. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present complaint is time barred as alleged by the OPs. Considering the facts of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay Rs. 63,223/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment and also to pay Rs. 2500/- as litigation cost to the complainant. This order be complied with by the Ops within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 26.05.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
