Haryana

StateCommission

A/795/2015

THE HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION LTD.(HOUSEFED) - Complainant(s)

Versus

KHUSHAL SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SOLATH

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                               First Appeal No.795 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution: 21.09.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 14.07.2016

 

Haryana State Coop.Housing Federation Bays No.49-52, Sector 2, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

 

…..Appellant

Versus

 

 

1.Khushal Sharma son of Sh.Pushkar Lal Sharma, r/o H.No.1697/303-C, Nai Abadi Rewari Tehsil & District Rewari.

2. Secretary The Rewari Coop. House Building Society Ltd. Marketing  Godown Behind Ahir College, Company Bagh, Rewari also at Sh.Pohap Singh s/o Sh.Amar Singh r/o village Thothwal P.O.Rajiyaki Tehsil & District Rewari.

3.Assistant Registrar, Coop. Societies, Opp. District Jail, Model Town, Rewari.

 

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri.Pardeep Solath, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                             Shri.Neeru Bansal, Advocate counsel for respondent No.1.

                             Mr. Dhanraj Head clerk representative of Respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                   It was alleged by the complainant that he obtained loan facility of Rs.1 lakh from Opposite Party (O.P.) No.3 through O.P. No.1 on 28.03.1997. The said loan was to be repaid in 80 equal installments of Rs.4249/- each. Last installment was to be paid on 01.11.2017. As a security original sale deed pertaining to house No.1697/303-C Nai Abadi, Rewari was handedover to Op No.3 creating equitable mortgage. He repaid total loan amount including interest to the tune of Rs.2,69,189.06 uptill 01.10.2008. At the time of availing loan facility he also paid Rs.8,000/- as share capital security which was refundable. If that amount is added then he paid Rs.2,77,179.06 to OP No.1. After payment he asked to return original sale deed, but, the same was still with O.P. No.3 due to which he was facing great difficulties. No objection certificate was also not issued. So Ops be directed to return original sale deed and to pay compensation as prayed for.

2.                          O.P. Nos.1 & 2 filed separate replies almost on similar grounds because Op No.3 was proceeded against exparte when nobody appeared on it’s behalf before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short “District Forum”) on 12.12.2012 despite being present on the previous dates. It was alleged by O.Ps.  that dispute was between a member and Managing Committee of society and jurisdiction of any other Forum was barred under Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (in short “Act”). The complainant had paid the amount but O.P. No.3 was not returning the sale deed.  In addition thereto Op No.2 also alleged that it was not having any concern with this dispute and the matter was pertaining to Op No.1 and Op No.3.

3.                         After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Rewari (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 06.08.2015 and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the Op No.3 to return the original sale deed No.4685 dated 06.03.1997, if not already returned, and also to forthwith issue the NOC regarding the loan amount to the complainant. The complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-”

 

4.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. No.3 has preferred this appeal.

5.                Arguments heard. File perused.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that no amount is received as yet. As there was default on the part of the complainant, so demand of Rs.4,14,277/- was raised. Unless this amount is paid sale deed cannot be returned.

7.                This argument is of no avail. From the perusal of loan repayment statements Ex.C2 & Ex.C3, it is clear that complainant has repaid the entire amount and nothing is due towards him. In Ex.C2 cheque numbers and dates are duly mentioned. These documents clearly prove the case of the complainant. Receipts about receiving cheques Ex.C4 to Ex.C38  are also proving this fact. It cannot presumed that there was any lapse on the part of the complainant. If Op No.1 has not transferred the amount in the account of O.P No.3 for that lapse complainant cannot be held liable. Keeping in view all the facts, learned District Forum has rightly directed to return the sale deed. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed but it is directed that Op No.1 should immediately transfer the amount in the account of the Op No.3.

8.                The statutory amount of Rs.7750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

July 14th, 2016    Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                              Member                                   Judicial Member                                         Addl. Bench                                      Addl.Bench         

S.K.