DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.791/2009
Sh. Sandeep P. Goyal
S/o Sh. P. N. Goyal
R/o B-84, Anand Vihar,
Delhi-110092 ….Complainant
Versus
HDFC Ltd.
India Habitat Center
Core 6A, 5th Floor,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 03.11.09 Date of Order : 10.07.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that he took a home loan of Rs.13,55,000/- at fixed rate of interest from the OP and created a mortgage by depositing the title documents of his flat. He instituted MRTP petition No.UTPE-106/07 challenging the rate of interest; that with a view to settle disputes the complainant decided to pay the home loan granted by the OP and abandoned MRTP petition; that the complainant paid off the entire loan in full and final settlement vide cheque No.410418 dated 11.09.09 for Rs.13,97,815/- and thereafter the mortgage stood discharged and the OP was duty bound to return the title documents alongwith a certificate of redemption of mortgage to him but the OP did not do so despite his making request and writing letters. Hence, the present complaint has been filed to direct the OP to return the original title deeds of the property alongwith covering letter certifying that the mortgage stands redeemed and the OP has no claim in respect of the flat and that the flat is free from all encumbrances and to award Rs.1 lac as damages on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
The case of the OP in the reply, so far as is material for the disposal of the present complaint, is that the MRTP petition filed by the complainant is still pending for adjudication; that later on it was agreed between the OP and complainant through his authorized signatory and father-in-law that after the repayment of the loan the original documents of the property shall remain lying in the custody of the OP during the pendency of MRTP petition and the same would be handed over to the complainant after the withdrawal of the MRTP petition by the complainant. However, the complainant has not done so despite the matter being fixed before MRTP commission on 08.10.09 and 14.10.09. Hence, according to the OP the intention of the complainant is malafide as, on the one hand, he wanted to continue with the legal proceedings pending adjudication before the MRTP Commission and, on the other hand, making false plea that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the same because he also wanted that the OP cannot produce the original documents before the MRTP Commission at the appropriate stage when directed by the MRTP Commission to do so. It is stated that in view of the pendency of the MRTP petition the present complaint is not maintainable. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the replication the complainant has inter-alia stated that the OP has delivered original title deeds to him on 06.04.10 alongwith covering letter of no dues and therefore his first prayer has become infructuous and the second prayer with regard to award of damages to him remains to be decided.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. D.K Gupta, Sr. Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
We do not want to burden the order with a lengthy discussion. Suffice it to say that the complainant is not entitled to get any damages from the OP because on the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 03.11.09 the MRTP petition was pending for disposal before the MRTP Commission. The copy of the order dated 30.03.16 passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in UTPE 106/07 has been filed as Ex. RW-/4 in which it is recorded that the complainant has made the payment of Rs.13,97,815/- in full and final settlement in claim of the OP and that nothing further survives in these proceedings except to direct the OP to hand over all the relevant documents to the complainant on 06.04.10. Therefore, it is very clear that the OP has complied with the order dated 30.03.16 and has returned the original title documents to the complainant on 06.04.10 alongwith a no dues certificate. Thus, on the date of filing of the present complaint, MRTP petition was pending for disposal. The complainant suppressed this fact by simply stating that the said petition had been abandoned by him despite the fact that the same was still pending and he appeared before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (the Successor of MRTP Commission) on 30.03.16. Therefore, by his own conduct the complainant has made himself disentitled to the award of any compensation or damages.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 10.07.17.
