Haryana

Karnal

20/2013

Rajinder Kumar S/o Devi Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishana Co-Operative House Building Society Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Bhagwan Dass

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No. 20 of 2013

                                                              Date of instt. 10.01.2013

                                                               Date of decision:28p.04.2016

 

Rajinder Kumar son of Devi Dass resident of House no.172, 13 Extension U.E. Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. The Krishana Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd., 152, Sant Nagar Hansi Chowk Karnal through its Secretary.

2. The Managing Director, Haryana State Co-operative housing Federation Ltd., Bays no.49-52, Second Floor, Sector-2, Panchkula.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:      Sh.Bhagwan Dass Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sandeep Rana Advocate for opposite parties.

 

 ORDER:

 

                    This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he obtained a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the opposite parties for  the construction of his house no.172, sector 13 Extension Urban Estate Karnal. The said house was mortgaged and the original documents were deposited with the opposite parties. He had paid the entire loan amount in installments. Opposite party no.1 prepared statement of account regarding pending dues upto 15.3.2002. The opposite party no.1 issued no dues certificate in his favour on 20.3.2002 and assured the original documents would be returned and the mortgage would be redeemed within one or two days. He approached the opposite party no.1 and moved an applications on 6.4.2004, 8.6.2006, 25.5.2007 and 10.1.2009, but he was told that original documents and mortgage deed would be returned by the opposite party no.2. Thereafter, he visited the office of opposite party no.2 number of times, but the opposite party no.2 refused to return the original document and redeem his house from the mortgage. Thus, the acts and conduct of opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service.

 2.               Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who appeared. Opposite party no.2 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable: that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

                   On merits it has been submitted that complainant failed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest thereon. The original documents cannot be delivered to him till repayment of the loan. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

                   No written statement was filed by opposite party no.1.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C7 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Balvinder Singh, Development Officer EX.OPW1/A and copy of statement of account Ex.OP1  have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                It s admitted fact that the complainant had obtained  loan from the opposite parties for construction of his house and for that purpose he deposited the original documents relating to the said house and also mortgaged the house with the opposite parties.

7.                As per the case of the complainant he had deposited all the installments and paid the loan amount alongwith interest thereupon upto 15.3.2002. On the other hand, it has been submitted by opposite party no.2 that the complainant failed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest. Thus, the main question which falls for consideration is whether the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount or some amount is still against him.

8                 The complainant has produced the copy of the statement of accounts prepared by secretary of opposite party no.1, according to which there was no outstanding amount against the complainant on 15.3.2002. It is established from the copy of the receipt Ex.C2 that he had deposited an amount of Rs.15000/- with opposite party no.1 on 15.3.2002. The opposite party no.1 had issued even no dues certificate, the copy of which is Ex.C3, on 20.3.2002. It was specifically mentioned that he had cleared his house building loan. These documents are sufficient to prove that the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount.

9.                Opposite party no.2 has claimed that the complainant has failed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest thereupon and copy of statement of the accounts Ex.OP1 has been produced in this regard. Opposite party no.1 has not disputed the fact that the entire loan amount was paid by the complainant on 15.3.2002 and no dues certificate was issued to him on 20.3.2002. If, the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite party no.1 was not transferred to opposite party no.2, the complainant cannot be made to suffer on that account. In such a situation, the opposite party no.2 can take appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law against opposite party no.1 for recovery of the balance amount, if any. After payment of the entire loan amount and issuance of no dues certificate in favour of the complainant the opposite parties were bound to return to him title deed and redeem his house. In this regard sustenance may be sought from the decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in case titled as The Haryana State Cop-operative Housing Federation Ltd. Vs. Satnam Kaur and another first appeal no.1101 of 2007 decided on 16.7.2007, wherein a similar question arose and it was held that after depositing the entire loan amount with opposite party no.1, it was the responsibility of opposite party no.1 to have deposited the outstanding amount in the account of the complainant with opposite party no.2 and default in this regard committed by opposite party no.1 cannot shift the responsibility upon the complainant. On failure of the opposite party no.1 to discharge its liability bilateral agreement entered into between the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.2, the title deed of the complainant can not  be retained by the opposite party no.2. If, the opposite party no.2 is allowed to retain the title deed of the complainant upto the time the liability incurred by the opposite party no.1 from the opposite party no.2 is discharged, that would injure the rights of the complainant, because he would be at the mercy and the sweet will of the opposite party no.2 and it would definitely result in harassment to the complainant.

10.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to return the original title deed of the complainant and redeem his house no.172 sector 13 extension urban estate Karnal from mortgage within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the opposite party no.2 to  pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 28.4.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member