Challenge in these Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Haryana State Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd., one of the Opposite Parties in the Complaints under the Act, is to the orders dated 10.06.2016 and 14.07.2016 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 449 of 2016 and 795 of 2015 respectively.  By the impugned orders, while upholding the orders dated 31.03.2016 and 06.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums at Karnal and Rewari (for short “the District Forums”) in Complaint Cases No. 578 of 2012 and 300 of 2012 respectively, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein.  By the said orders, while allowing the Complaints, preferred by Respondents No. 1 in these Revision Petitions, the District Forums had, inter alia, directed the Petitioner herein to return the original title deeds of the Complainants and other loan documents.   

Since the Revision Petitions involve, more or less, similar facts, same Petitioner and common issue, these are being disposed of by this common order.  However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 2900 of 2016 is treated as the lead case and the facts, referred to hereinafter, are also taken from the said Revision Petition.

The Complainant, Chander Shekhar, had obtained a loan of ₹2,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties for construction of house, No. 771, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal.  The original title deeds of the said house were deposited and mortgaged with the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant had paid the entire loan amount to the Opposite Parties in instalments and the first Opposite Party, i.e. the Cooperative House Building Society, had prepared the statement of account regarding the pending dues upto 01.11.2011 along with interest thereon upto 30.11.2012.  As per the statement of account, a sum of ₹3,96,368/- was outstanding and an amount of ₹3,85,000/- was paid through Demand Draft No. 670309 dated 29.11.2012 in favour of the second Opposite Party, the Petitioner herein, and ₹11,368/- was paid in cash vide Receipt No. 4494 dated 29.11.2012.  The Complainant averred that the entire outstanding amount was paid by him to the Opposite Parties and that a No Dues Certificate was also issued by the first Opposite Party on 30.11.2012.  It was pleaded by the Complainant that the Opposite Parties had assured him that the original documents would be returned to him within a period of two days together with redemption of the mortgage deed.  Despite repeated requests and visits, the title deeds and the mortgage deed along with redemption endorsement was not returned and made to the Complainant.  In the said background facts, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum.

The second Opposite Party, i.e. the Petitioner herein, had filed Written Version, stating that an amount of ₹3,96,368/- was outstanding and that the Complainant had failed to repay the amount along with interest and, therefore, the original documents could not be returned.

The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced by the parties, allowed the Complaint, directing the Petitioner to return the original title deeds in respect of house No. 771, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal, and redeem the said house from mortgage, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, and also pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹5500/- towards mental harassment and litigation costs.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred Appeal before the State Commission.  As noted above, the State Commission, while concurring with the finding of the District Forum, dismissed the Appeal, by observing thus:

“4.     Against the impugned order dated 31.03.2016, the OP-2/appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their earlier pleas raised before the District Forum.  We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record.  It is evident that against the total amount of loan borrowed by the complainant, he has repaid the entire amount alongwith interest etc. to OP-1.  The balance of Rs.11,368/- was also paid in cash on 29.11.2012 vide receipt No. 4494.  It was thereupon that on the next date OP-1 issued the “No Dues Certificate”.  Thus, nothing was left unpaid by the complainant.  If due to their mutual understanding between OP No.1 and OP No.2, the amount of loan alongwith interest repaid by the complainant was not shared, the complainant was not responsible for the same.  Due to their internal dispute, the original documents of the complainant could not be retained by them.”

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no privity of contract between the Complainants and the Petitioner/Federation and that the Complainants were chronic defaulters and had not discharged the entire loan amounts.

As far as Revision Petition No. 2900 of 2016 is concerned, a brief perusal of the record shows that the Complainant Chander Shekhar had repaid the entire loan amount together with interest to the first Opposite Party by a Demand Draft dated 29.11.2012; the balance amount of ₹11,368/- was paid in cash, for which a Receipt, No. 4494, dated 29.11.2012 was also issued; and the first Opposite Party had issued a No Dues Certificate to the Complainant.  As regards Revision Petition No.2901 of 2016, on proper analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties, there is a finding returned by the Fora below to the effect that the Complainant Khushal Sharma had repaid the entire amount and nothing was due from him; and if the Society had not transferred the said amount in the account of the Federation, the Complainant cannot be held responsible for the same.  In this view of the matter, the Complainants cannot be made to suffer for any dispute between the Federation and the Society.  This view is also fortified by the order of this Commission dated 04.11.2011 passed in Revision Petition No. 1865 of 2009 and other connected matters, wherein, while negating the contention of the Petitioner herein that there was no privity of contract between it and the Complainants, this Commission had dismissed the Revision Petitions, preferred by the Petitioner Federation, with costs of ₹10,000/- in each of the Revision Petitions.   

In the result, the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed in limine.  No order as to costs.