In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 222/2011 1) Sri Deepak Dayal, Flat No. B & C of Balaji Apartment, Plot No.31, Senhati Co-operative Colony, Premises No.27, Senhati Colony, P.S. Behala, Kolkata-34, Dist. South 24 Parganas. ---------- Complainant ---Versus--- 1) Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Jeevandeep Building, Kolkata-71. 2) Chief Manager, Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. 1, Middleton Street, JeevandeepBuilding, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-71. ---------- Opposite Parties. Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President. Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member Order No. 19 Dated 24/01/2013. Smt. S. Basu, Member. In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a flat from one Dr. Bimal Kr. Ghosh on 18.10.02 and entered into possession on the same day. While purchasing the flat complainant applied for financial assistance from o.ps. O.ps. advanced an amount of 9 lakhs as loan to the complainant subject to deposit of Title Deed and payment of EMI as fixed by them. Accordingly, complainant entered into agreement with o.ps. and as per norms deposited the title deed with o.ps. It was agreed by and between the parties that the title deed of complainant shall be returned by o.p. on making full and final settlement of the disbursed loan. Complainant diligently repaid the loan and after repayment of loan in full and final satisfaction requested the o.ps. to return his title deed but o.ps. failed and neglected to deliver the title deed to complainant. O.ps. vide their letter dt.4.2.11 informed that the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore has freezed the accounts of the vendor of the flat as such his title deed cannot be returned though the other of the Ld. ACJM, Alipore pertains in another case against one Bimal Ghosh on which the complainant has no concern. Moreover, the account of Bimal Ghosh have been freezed. It is submitted by the complainant that as per the order and the letter of o.ps. that such a holding of title deed by o.ps. of the complainant is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint. O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Decision with reasons: We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant paid the entire amount due to the credit of o.ps. and complainant is in possession of the flat in question and while granting loan of Rs.9 lakhs in favour of the complainant the sale deed was hypothecated with the o.ps., but after liquidation of the entire amount due to the credit of o.ps., o.ps. refused to return the original deed in question to complainant on the plea that the Ld. ACJM, Alipore directed the o.ps. not to release the deed in question and that the reason why o.ps. did not hand over the deed in question to complainant despite several requests even after liquidation of the entire loan amount. Now perusing the order of the Ld. ACJM, Alipore and also perusing the basis of which the said order was passed it is observed by us that complainant is not a party to that dispute. That being the position we find no justification on the part of o.ps. not to release the deed in question to the complainant and to harass the complainant unnecessarily. So considering the above position we are of the views that the o.ps. had deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief. Hence, ordered, That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to hand over the original deed in question lying with them in favour of the complainant and are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of the COPRA, 1986. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost. | 
