Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/215/2018

S.Sukumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Housing Developement Finance Corporation Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

V.Balaji

13 Jul 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :12.11.2009           Date of disposal            :13.07.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                              THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.215/2018

 

DATED WEDNESDAY THE 13^th  DAY JULY OF 2022

S.Sukumar,

Plot No.4, Door.No.11,

First Main Road Avenue,                                                                  

Dandeeswarar Nagar,

Velachery, Chennai-600 042.

                                                                                      .…..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

Housing Development Finance

Corporation Limited., Rep by its

Deputy General Manager,

II Floor, ITC Centre,

760, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600 002.

                                                                                      …..Opposite Party

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                           : M/s. V.Balaji, A.Sermaraj

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                        : M/s. Sampathkumar & Associates

                                                                   And R.Ramani

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT :

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to return the Original Construction Agreement, Original Sale Agreement, Original Sale deed, Copy of mortgage deed and original Encumbrance Certificate and to pay Rs.1.Lacs as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- being the cost of this complaint.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 955/2009.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.215/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant stated that the he has availed Housing loan of Rs.4Lakhs from the opposite party on 25.09.1998.  The loan was collaterally secured by  mortgage of flat belonging to the complainant situated at Flat No.A-2, Sreenivasa Apartments, Plot No.4 D, No.11, First main road avenue, Dhandeeswaram nagar, Velachery, Chennai-600 042.  The complainant stated that during that period he was working as senior clerk, Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003. On 05.05.1999 the southern railway by its proceedings no.P(B)/23/A/1957 permitted the complainant to create second mortgage on the property.  In the permission letter itself the departments handed over the various documents enabling the complainant to deposit the title deeds to the opposite party to create the equitable mortgage.  The complainant stated that on 06.05.1999 the complainant has handed over the all the original documents to the opposite party and the same was acknowledged by the opposite party.  The complainant stated that he has discharged entire housing loan and the opposite party has issued no due certificate on 10.06.2008. The southern railway also issued no objection certificate by its proceedings no.P(B)/23/A/F2592, dated:19.12.2008.  The complainant stated that on 18.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 the complainant requested the opposite party to return the original documents deposited at the time of created mortgage.  The complainant stated that on 13.07.2009 he received reply from the opposite party that as if the original documents have been released to the complainant in the month of June 2008.  The reply is false because the document can be returned only on specific day upon getting signature from the various records.  Non return of documents after the discharge of loan amount to deficiency in service.  He was not able to deal with the property. Hence the opposite party liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THEOPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party denies all the allegations stated by the complainant except those, which are specifically admitted thereon. The opposite party submitted that the complainant has availed housing loan of Rs.4 lakhs from the opposite party on 25.09.1998 for the property mentioned in the complaint.  The mortgage was a second mortgage created by the complainant on the property.  The opposite party submitted that the documents were handed over by the complainant to the opposite party in person on 06.05.1999 and the opposite party has also acknowledged the same for the receipt of the documents.  The opposite party admitted that the complainant discharged his entire loan and the opposite party has also issued him a no due certificate in this regard on 19.06.2008. The opposite party submitted that all the documents have been handed over to the complainant and the complainant had acknowledged the same on 19.06.2008.  There are no separate procedures to be followed for releasing the documents as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant has mischievously issued letters dated 18.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 stating that the opposite party has not returned the documents which is totally false and it is being made with ulterior motive.  The opposite party has duly replied on 13.07.2009, stating the documents have already been released/handed over to the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the complainant suppressing the entire matters as if the opposite party has not returned the documents which is totally false.  Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

Both side arguments heard. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A7 were marked on his side and written arguments.  The opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 were marked on the opposite parties side and written arguments.

4. POINT NO :1 :-

                    It is admitted case of both the parties that the complainant borrowed a housing loan of Rs. 4 lakhs from the opposite party on 25.09.1998, by mortgaging the complainants Flat No.A-2, Sreenivasa Apartments, Plot No.4 D, No.11, First main road avenue, Dhandeeswaram nagar, Velachery, Chennai-600 042 by depositing the title deeds of the complainant to the opposite party by creating equitable mortgage and admittedly the original documents were handedover by the complainant to the opposite party on 06.05.1999 which was acknowledged by the opposite party and entire housing loan was discharged and the opposite party has issued no due certificate 10.06.2008 and the southern railway in which the complainant was employed as a senior clerk has also issued no objection certificate on 19.12.2008.  According to the complainant the original sale deed, sale agreement and other three documents as mentioned in para.2 of the complaint was not returned by the opposite party inspite of request made by the complainant on 18.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 and therefore the complainant prayed for return of the original documents and also Rs.1/- lakh as compensation and other reliefs.

          5. But as per the written version of the opposite party the entire loan was discharged and no due certificate was issued on 19.06.2008 by the opposite party and original documents were handed over to the complainant on 19.06.2008 which was stated in the reply sent on 13.07.2009 by the opposite party but the complainant has falsely filed this complaint with ulterior motive.

          6. Ex.A2 is the acknowledgment letter dated 06.05.1999 by the opposite party for the deposit of original title deeds by the complainant.  Ex.A3 is no due certificate issued by the opposite party.  Ex.A5 and A6 are letter by the complainant for return of documents and Ex.A7 is the reply by the opposite party.  It is found from the Ex.B1 dated;19.06.2008 which is no due certificate issued by the opposite party wherein it is stated that entire loan amount was repaid by the complainant and in the said Ex.B1 the complainant has acknowledged the receipt of original documents and affixed his signature confirming the same.  It is pertinent to note that Ex.A3 is similar to Ex.B1, but in Ex.A3 the acknowledgement of documents and the signature of the complainant were not found. But on that score the complainant is not entitled to allege that the documents were not received by him.  Further even in the  reply dated 13.07.2009 and in the written version filed by the opposite party on 30.03.2010 itself, it has been clearly stated that all the documents were handed over to the complainant and acknowledged by him on 19.06.2008. Merely because the opposite party in the reply dated:13.07.2009 stated that they undertake to do all remedial measure prescribed under law for the loss of the documents in case the complainant require the same it cannot be concluded that the documents were not handed over to the complainant.  Hence it is found that the opposite party had already handed over to the complainant of all the original documents as found in Ex.B1 and complainant failed to prove the allegations to the contrary in the complaint and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.   Point no 1 answered accordingly.

7. Point. No.2:-

          Based on findings given to point. No.1.  the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint.Point.no.2 is answered accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 13^th   day of  July 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	05.05.1999	Permission letter given by southern railway
Ex.A2	06.05.1999	Acknowledgment letter given by the opposite party
Ex.A3	10.06.2008	No due certificate issued by the opposite paty
Ex.A4		No objection certificate
Ex.A5	18.06.2009	Letter to opposite party
Ex.A6	01.07.2009	Letter to opposite party
Ex.A7	13.07.2009	Letter from the opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1

19.06.2008

Receipt of documents by the complainant

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT