PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.7.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint of the complainant(now appellant). 2. The complainant ( now appellant) availed of housing loan to the tune of Rs. one lac and fifty thousand from the opposite parties(now respondents), after mortgaging the sale deed of Plot No.10, measuring 5 marla situated at Mander Nagar, Kharar, as security. The complainant was regularly paying the instalments. On repayment of the entire loan, the Opposite Parties issued ‘No Due Certificate’ dated 8.3.2006 annexure C2. It was stated that the Opposite Parties failed to return the original sale deed of the plot, referred to above, which was deposited with them, by way of security, at the time of taking loan, despite repeated requests and after service of legal notice dated 23.8.2010 annexure C5. It was further stated that the complainant applied for loan to the State Bank of Patiala, for raising construction over the plot, which was sanctioned, but could not be disbursed for want of deposit of the sale deed, aforesaid. It was further stated that, as such, the complainant suffered loss. It was further stated that the complainant, also underwent a tremendous physical harassment and mental agony, on account of the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no other alternative, he filed the complaint, under Section 12 of the Act, directing the Opposite Parties, to return the original sale deed ; to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7 lacs for mental agony and physical harassment caused to him ; and cost of litigation. 3. In the reply, filed by the Opposite Parties, it was pleaded that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, as the loan was availed of at Moga,and, as such, no cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It was stated that the complainant closed the loan and obtained ‘no objection certificate’ and the documents from the opposite parties on 30.3.2006. It was further stated that it was not known as to how the complainant slept over the matter for a period of 4 ½ years, in case, he had allegedly not received the sale deed. It was not denied that the complainant had deposited the original sale deed, by way of security, at the time of taking loan, from the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that no document of the complainant, was available with the Opposite Parties. It was denied that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum came to the conclusion, that the complainant failed to produce any evidence, to the effect, that he deposited the original sale deed, with the Opposite Parties , at the time of taking loan, by way of security, and, as such, the question of return of the same, did not at all arise. The complaint of the complainant was accordingly dismissed. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/ complainant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record, and evidence of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that he specifically mentioned in para No.3 of the complaint, that the sale deed, in question, was deposited with the Opposite Parties , at the time of taking loan, by way of security. He further submitted that, this fact, was not denied by the Opposite Parties, in the written replies, but, on the other the hand, it was stated by them that it was a matter of record. He further submitted that, as such, the fact pleaded but not denied specifically, amounted to admission of the same. He further submitted that the District Forum did not take into consideration the contents of para NO.3 of the complaint and reply, filed by the Opposite Parties , to this para, and, as such, it fell into a grave error, in holding that the sale deed was not deposited by the complainant. He further submitted that, no doubt, at the time of closure of loan, vide annexure A3, some documents were returned to the complainant, but it did not contain the original sale deed. He further submitted that the complainant applied for loan, for raising construction, to the State Bank of Patiala, which was sanctioned, but not disbursed, as he was unable to deposit the sale deed with it, by way of collateral security. He further submitted that, as such, the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. He further submitted that financial loss was also caused to the complainant. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that no evidence was produced by the complainant, to the effect, that he deposited the sale deed, with the Opposite Parties, and, as such, the question of return of the same, did not at all arise. He further submitted that, whatever documents, were deposited, at the time of obtaining the loan, the same were returned to him, vide letter annexure A3. He further submitted that the District Forum at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, as no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not. It is evident from receipt dated 18.2.2005 at page 34 of the District Forum file that an EMI of Rs.23351/- of loan was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties at Chandigarh. Even, it is evident from receipt dated 4.3.2006, at page 35 of the District Forum file, that Foreclosure charges of Rs.1,50,948/- were paid by the complainant through DD/Cheque No.021782 drawn on State Bank of India, Sector 7-C Chandigarh. Thus, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant at Chandigarh. Therefore, the District Forum at Chandigarh had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the opposite parties, thus, being devoid of merit is rejected. 11. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant deposited the sale deed, with the Opposite Parties, at the time of obtaining loan, by way of security. In para No.3 of the complaint, the complainant, in clear-cut terms, averred that the loan of Rs.1.50 lacs was taken by him, and Mrs. Manjit Kaur for purchasing plot No.10, measuring 5 marla in Mander Nagar, Kharar. He further averred that the registry of the land situated in Hadbast No.184 bearing Khasra Nos.13/5/2(5-2),6(0-16) 7,(8-0),9(7-4) 13(8-0) and 15(7-16) was submitted to the Opposite Parties, in original, as security. In reply to para NO.3, on merits, the Opposite Parties only stated that it was a matter of record. Since the contents of para No.3 of the complaint were not denied, by the Opposite Parties, it means that the same were deemed to have been admitted. The fact, which is deemed to be admitted, need not to be proved. The District Forum, apparently overlooked the contents of para No.3 of the complaint, and reply to the same, given by the Opposite Parties. Had the District Forum taken into consideration the contents of para No.3 of the complaint, as also the contents of corresponding para No.3 of the written reply, it would not have fallen into a grave error, in coming to the conclusion, that the original sale deed was not deposited by the complainant, with the Opposite Parties, at the time of taking loan of Rs.1.50 lacs. Under these circumstances, the findings recorded by the District Forum, that the original sale deed was not deposited by the complainant, with the Opposite Parties, at the time of obtaining loan, being contrary to the record, are illegal, and liable to be set aside. 12. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the sale deed was returned to the complainant, at the time of return of the remaining documents, or not. Annexure C3 is the letter, vide which, the complainant acknowledged that he had received certain documents. This letter does not reveal that the original sale deed, referred to above, was also received by the complainant. No other evidence was produced by the Opposite Parties, that they handed over the original sale deed, to the complainant, at the time of return of other documents, vide annexure C3. In the written reply, no doubt, the Opposite Parties took up the plea, that, whatever documents were with them, they had returned the same, to the complainant. This did not mean that the original sale deed was also returned. Since the original sale deed was not returned, the loan sanctioned, in favour of the complainant by the State Bank of Patiala, was not disbursed to him, for want of deposit of the title deed. Not only this, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, a number of times and even wrote letters to them over a period of 4 ½ years, for return of the original sale deed to him, but to no avail. By not returning the original sale deed to the complainant which was deposited by him, with the opposite parties despite writing a number of letters to them, they (opposite parties) were grossly deficient in rendering service. 13. On account of the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, the complainant not only suffered a financial loss, as the loan sanctioned in his favour, by the State Bank of Patiala was not disbursed to him, for want of deposit of title deed, by way of collateral security, but he also underwent a tremendous physical harassment, and mental agony, for a number of years. He is, thus, not only entitled to compensation, but also to the return of the original sale deed. 14. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to what should be the quantum of compensation, to be granted to the complainant for financial loss, physical harassment and mental agony. The Opposite Parties were most insensitive, to the genuine request of the complainant. They adopted a very callous and indifferent attitude, towards the genuine request of the complainant, for return of the original sale deed. If the complainant, at the time of closing loan, and obtaining other documents, could not point out, that the original sale deed, was not returned to him, he could not be penalized for the same. It was the legal duty of the Opposite Parties to return the original sale deed to him, the moment, the loan was repaid by him, and his account stood closed. On account of the inaction, inefficiency and indifferent attitude, of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered a lot. In Doson Chemical Private Limited and Others Vs United Bank of India and another,2003(1)CPC 606, a case decided by a Full Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having identical facts, it was held that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, on account of non-return of the original documents. Accordingly, in the aforesaid case, compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- was granted to the complainant. The complainant is, thus, entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, which can be said to be fair and reasonable. 15. No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the parties. 16. The order of the District Forum, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside. 17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with costs of Rs.10,000/- and the impugned order is set aside. The complaint is allowed as under ; (i) The Opposite Parties are directed to hand over the original sale deed, referred to above, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order ; (ii) In case, the original sale deed, has been lost/misplaced by the Opposite Parties, then they shall procure a certified copy of the same, from the Office of the concerned Sub-Registrar, at their own cost, with the assistance of the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, and handover the same to him (complainant); (iii) The Opposite Parties shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant, for causing him financial loss, mental agony, and physical harassment, as indicated above. (iv) The compensation shall be paid within a period of 30 days, from the receipt of a certified copy of the order, by the Opposite Parties, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a., on the said payable amount, from the date of filing of the complaint, besides costs. 18. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 19. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
