Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/939/2012

Ram Pal S/o IshaqmLal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana State Co-operative Housing Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Bhardwaj

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 939 of  2012.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 04.09.2012.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 06.12.2016.

 

Ram Pal aged about 42 years old son of Sh. Ishaq Lal resident of Ward No. 13, Shiv Colony, Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                                        Versus

1. Haryana State Co-operative Housing Ltd. Phase No. 59-51, Sector-2, 2^nd Floor, Panchkula, Haryana through its Managing Director.  
2. The Radaur Jamna Co-op. House Building Society Ltd. Main Bazar, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar through its President/ Secretary.     

 

                                            …Respondents. 

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

               Sh. Nirman Kapoor, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

               Respondent No.2 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Ram Pal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that the respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred as OP No.2) be directed to return all the original documents deposited with it at the time of availing loan facility and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

 2.                    Brief facts, of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant availed a house loan facility of Rs. 80,000/- for construction of house from the OP No.2 who is working under the control of the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1). As such there exists a relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. At the time of availing the aforesaid loan facility, in security of the said loan amount, the OP No.2 had taken original documents in respect of house from the complainant and assured the complainant that the original documents will be returned to the complainant after clearance of the loan amount. Thereafter, the complainant made the payment of entire loan amount and OP No.2 issued “No Dues Certificate” dated 25.09.2003 in favour of the complainant. After clearance of the said loan, the complainant demanded back his original documents from the Op No.2 but the OP No.2 told to the complainant that he can collect the original documents after a week but till date the OP No.2 has failed to give the original documents to the complainant and prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OP No.2 failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.10.2013. 

4.                     OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is legally not maintainable in the present Forum; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum as the true facts are that a huge outstanding debt of Rs. 4,18,269.65 including interest is standing in the name of complainant which is unpaid till date and on merit, it has been submitted that the original documents of a loanee  are returned only when the loan is satisfied and in the case of the complainant as per the statement of account a sum of Rs. 4,18,269.65 including interest is standing in the name of complainant. The copy of account statement is attached as Annexure R-1. Moreover, the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred as per section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Society Act, 1984 and as per section 102 of the said Act there is a provision for referring the disputes for arbitration and further as per section 112 of the Act, the Registrar or persons empowered by him to be treated as Civil Court and as per section 124 of the said Act mandatory notice of 2 months is necessary for instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society, hence the present complaint cannot be entertained and decided by this Forum. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy application written by complainant regarding return of original sale deed as Annexure C-1, Photo copies of No Dues Certificate as Annexure C-2 and C-3, Photocopies of loan payment receipts as Annexure C-4 to C-25, Photo copy of cheque of Rs. 10,000/- dated 16.09.2003 as Annexure C-26, Photo copy of cheque of Rs. 15,000/- dated 19.09.2003 as Annexure C-27 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dharamveer Singh, Lathar, Development Officer, as Annexure RW/A and document such as photo copy of account statement of Ram Pal as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.1.

 7.                    We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     Without commenting on the merit of the case, from the perusal of the contents of complaint, it is admitted case of the complainant himself that OP No.2 issued the “No Dues Certificate” on dated 25.09.2003 which is also duly evident from the copy of “No Dues Certificate” (Annexure C-2) but the present complaint has been filed on 04.09.2012. Further, neither the complainant has filed any application for condonation of delay nor has disclosed any reason in the complaint itself for filing the complaint after a period of about 9 years and the complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that:

Section 24A: Limitation Period- The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has been arisen.

                        Learned counsel for the OPs also referred the case law titled as M/s IFCI Ltd. Versus Anirudh Hisariya & Another, 2015(4) CPR page 95 (NC) wherein it has been held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 24-A- No application under- Complaint barred by limitation- HELD- District Forum committed error in entertaining and allowing complaint- State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal- Revision petition filed by petitioners allowed”.

                        Further referred the case law titled as United Bank of India Versus Janata Paradise Hotel and Restaurant, IV (2014) CPJ page 383 9NC), United Commercial Bank Versus J.S.Preet 1999 (2) CPC page 216, Kolar District Cooperative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. Versus Canara Bank and another 2015(3) CPR page 754 (NC) and V.K. Appliances Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2014(1) CPC Page 149 NC.

9.                     In view of the facts narrated above and case law referred by the counsel for the OPs, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court/ authority as per law, if so advised. Complainant can take the benefits of the time spent before this Forum in accordance with citation titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. Assistant is directed to return the original documents, if any, to the complainant after retaining the photo copies of the same on the file. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 06.12.2016.

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT                                     

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA  )

                                                                                                MEMBER