IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Tuesday the 28^th  day of February, 2017

Filed on 14..11..2016

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D  (Member)

in

C.C.No.366/2016

between

Complainant:-                                                                   Opposite Parties:-

S.Prasannan Nair                                                    1.          Kerala Co-Operative

Thekkethayil                                                                       Housing Federation

North Ariad.P.O                                                                 Kaloor.P.O

Valiya Kalavoor                                                                   Eranakulam

Alappuzha                                                                            (Adv.Binu Mathew)

                                                                              2.         Alappuzha Housing                                                                                                                        Co-operative Society Ltd

                                                                                          No.A-111 Sahakarana Nagar

                                                                                          Thathampally, Alappuzha

                                                                                           (Adv. V.Pramod)

O R D E R

SMT.ELIZABETH  GEORGE (PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant is as follows:-  

Complainant availed loan of Rs. 1, 25,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party in the year 2006.  Complainant repaid loan along with agreed interest and opposite party issued receipt for the same.  While availing the loan complainant mortgaged the original title deed with the opposite party.  Even though the complainant repaid fully amount of loan along with interest opposite party failed to return the original of the title deeds of the complainant.  The action of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and had caused much hardships and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complaint filed.

2. Version of the 1^st opposite party  is as follows:-

The complainant and the 2^nd opposite party jointly applied for  loan for Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) to the Federation as per Loan Application dated 14/06/2006.  The Federation sanctioned the loan as per the loan sanction order of the Federation dated 2/09/2006.  Thereafter the complainant /borrower, mortgaged his property by Registered Gehan No. 1152/2006 in favour of the Primary Society.  The Primary Society sub mortgaged the property with the consent and knowledge of the complainant in favour of the Federation and the Registered Mortgage Deed was executed between the Primary  Society and Federation on 30/09/2006.  Accepting the mortgages by deposit of title deeds and retaining the title and mortgage deeds, Federation disbursed the loan/ mortgage amount to the applicant/member through the Primary Society as contemplated in Regulation 16.  Both the mortgages are made with the knowledge and consent of the Applicant.  As per Clause 21 of the Bye- laws of the Federation, the loan shall be granted only on the security of the assignment of the mortgaged properties as on the equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the houses and immovable properties taken by the Primary Societies from its Applicant members as the securities for the loan.  Clause 29 of the Loan Regulation states that the entire assets of the Primary Society will be considered as security for the loan and the security offered by the members of the Primary Society for the purpose of the loan will be considered as the collateral security.  Clause 30 of the Loan Regulation states that the Housing Federation shall have a charge on the land on which the house is proposed to be put up. The houses constructed/purchased/ repaid/ improved with the loan shall remain as the property of the Housing Federation until the loan is fully repaid.  If the complainant remits the balance amount due to the Federation, title deeds will be returned recording the discharge of liability to the complainant.  If the Federation looses the custody of the title deed, charge over the property as per Loan Regulation 29 and 30 will be lost to the Federation.  The Federation had act in accordance with the terms and conditions with the approved loan regulation and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. Version of the 2^nd opposite party:-

Complainant availed loan for an amount of Rs. 1, 25,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party. At the time of the loan agreement itself complainant was intimated and was aware that all the loan applications received at the opposite party was to be forwarded to the Kerala State Co-operative Housing Federation with the recommendation from the opposite party.The Housing Federation is detaining the documents of the members because the repayment made by the members has not been remitted to the Federation. Departmental disciplinary action and criminal proceedings is also being intimated against the previous Secretary and the administrative Committee.Hence grievance of the complainant if any has to be addressed to the Housing Federation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.

4.  Considering the allegation of the complainant this Forum as raised the following issues for considering:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and cost?  

5.It is an admitted fact that complainant had taken loan for Rs. 1,25,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party on 14/06/2006 after mortgaging his title deeds.  According to the complainant after closing the loan amount the opposite party failed to return the original of title deeds.  The documents produced by the complainant show that he had remitted the full loan amounts.  The opposite party have no case that complainant has to pay any balance amount. Inspite of   repeated demand by the complainant the opposite party failed to return the original title deeds  and that amounts to  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. If the documents were kept by the opposite parties it is their bounden duty to return the same to the complainant.  In a decision reported in 2008 CPJ page no 98 in Housing development Corporation  Vs. Santha,  Honorable National Commission  held that bank liable to pay compensation for the inordinate delay in returning the title deeds.

In the result the complaint is allowed as follows.   

1. Opposite party shall return the original of title deeds to the complainants.
2. The opposite party shall pay Rs.5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 1000 (Rupees Thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me an pronounced

in open Forum on this the 28^th  day of  February 2017.

Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

Appendix: Nil.

-//True copy//-

                                                                                                                                By Order,

 Senior Superintendent

To

       Complainant/Opposite parties/SF

Typed by :-Br /-  

 Compd by: