Punjab

Sangrur

CC/448/2016

Harmail Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

House Fed - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ajay Aggarwal

04 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                                                            

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 448                                                                                        

                                                                   Instituted on:  13.07.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    04.01.2017

 

Harmail Kaur daughter of Bant Singh resident of Prem Nagar, Qila  Rehmatgarh, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1.     The Director House Fed Punjab, SCO 162, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2.     The District Manager Cum Sale Officer, House Fed Office, Sangrur District Sangrur.

3.     The Malerkotla Co-operative House, Building Society Limited Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

4.     The Secretary Urban House Fed Office Urban, Near Stadium Zakhir Hussain, Bus Stand Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.  

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Ajay Aggarwal,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&2:  Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                   

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.3&4    :      Exparte

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Harmail Kaur complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she  had obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from OP no.1 and mortgaged her property 5 biswas and   deposit of original title deeds of the land measuring 5 biswas.  The complainant had deposited  Rs.2,21,369/- with the OPs. Earlier OPs had issued notice number 3176-B dated 09.10.2013 regarding auction/sale of the plot/ house of the complainant.  The complainant challenged the said notice  by filing a civil suit  no.319 of 21.11.2003 in the Court of Shri Pushvinder Singh, PCS, Addl. Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Malerkotla. The Hon'ble court had decreed the suit of the complainant  and said notice was declared not a legal one and under paragraph  no.8 of the judgment it was held that  as such  in view of Damdupat, the defendants are not entitled to  recover the amount of interest which is in excess to principal amount. Accordingly the notice issued by the defendants dated 9.10.2003  is illegal, null and void. The OPs filed CMA against the judgment  but vide order dated 27.10.2014  the same was also dismissed. The OPs inspite of repeated requests of complainant are not issuing no due certificate and are not returning the original title deeds of property mentioned above.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to issue no due certificate and return the original title deeds to the complainant,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.90000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs no.1&2, preliminary objections  on the  grounds suppression of material facts,  maintainability,  cause of action  and jurisdiction have been taken up. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant had obtained a loan from the OPs and mortgaged  her property.  It is denied that the complainant is  a consumer of the OPs and as per official record the complainant is  the member  of Society  and agreement of loan was executed in favour of the OPs by the complainant. The  complainant has not deposited any alleged amount to the OPs.

3.             As per record, the Ops no.3 and 4 were proceeded exparte on 26.08.2016.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs.1&2/1 to Ex.OPs.1&2/6 and closed evidence.  

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the main relief of the complainant in this case is for direction to the OPs to issue no due certificate and return the original title deeds.

6.             It is not disputed in the case that the complainant had obtained a loan  of Rs.1,00,000/-  from the OP and mortgaged her property vide registered mortgage deed dated 29.07.1988  and OPs issued  notice number 3176-B dated 9.10.2003. The complainant's version is that  notice  number 3176-B dated 09.10.2003 was challenged  by filing civil suit no. 319 of 2003 which was decreed  and said notice  was declared not a legal one  and  defendants were restrained from making any recovery of Rs.1,21,301/-  vide  judgment and decree dated 30.05.2008. On the other hand, OPs  have stated that they are entitled to recover the outstanding amount as per the loan agreement.

7.             In relief para (11) of copy of judgment dated 30.05.2008  passed by Shri Pushvinder Singh, PCS, Addl. Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Malerkotla Ex.C-7,   it has been mentioned that "  In view of my discussion mentioned  above and findings on issue nos 1 to 4 suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed exparte and notice no.3176-B dated 09.10.2003 is declared a illegal, null and void and the defendants are restrained from making any recovery of Rs.1,21,301/-  from the plaintiff forcibly and illegally, and the defendants are also restrained from auctioning / selling  the house of the plaintiff, fully detailed in the head note of the plaint for the recovery of the suit amount."

8.             From the perusal of the  above said order we find that the Hon'ble court had only declared the notice number 3176-B dated 09.10.2003 as illegal, null and void  and also defendants were restrained from  making any recovery of Rs.1,21,301/-  from plaintiff forcibly and illegally.  As such, it is clear that  the  an amount of Rs.1,21,301/- is outstanding  against loan taken by the   complainant  and OPs  were only restrained from making  the above said recovery from the complainant forcibly and illegally and further restrained from auctioning / selling the house of the complainant meaning thereby the Ops are entitled to recover the outstanding amount of Rs.1,21,301/- by legal means/process. The complainant herself has stated in the complaint that  an amount of Rs.1,21,301/- is outstanding against her.   

9.             In view of the facts stated above, we  feel that  relief of issuance of no due certificate and return of original title deeds cannot be granted when  some amount is due against the complainant as alleged by the OPs. Hence, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                January 4, 2017

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati)  ( Sarita Garg)               (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                       Member                   Member                         President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-