Haryana

Karnal

462/2012

Devi Bai W/ Roop Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna Cooperative House Building Society LtdFederation Corporation Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Surinder Punia

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 462 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.21.09.2012

                                                                Date of decision:7.2.2017

 

1. Smt. Devi Bai widow of Shri Roop Chand son of Shri Jassu Ram.

2. Tulsi Dass son of Shri Roop Chand.

3. Suresh Kumar son of Shri Roop Chand.

4. Devinder Kumar son of Shri Roop Chand, all residents of House no.529-30, New Prem Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The Krishana Co-op House Building Society Ltd. Kothi no.30, sector-8 Urban Estate, Karnal.

2. The Development Officer Housing Federation Corporation 516/13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

3. The Haryana Housing Federation Corporation Ltd. Bag no.49-52, Sector-2, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

 

                                                           ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.Abhishek Duhan Advocate for the complainant.

                    Representative for opposite party no.1.

                    Sh. Sandeep Singh Rana Advocate for the Opposite party no.2.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that Roop Chand (since deceased) the husband of the complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 to 4 obtained a loan of Rs.one lac from opposite parties and the same was repayable in monthly installments of Rs.4114/- each. Roop Chand expired on 30.10.2007. He paid the loan installments regularly during his life time. After the death of Roop Chand, the complainants being his legal heirs contacted the officials of opposite party no.1 and asked to them to furnish the statement of account, as they were ready to deposit the balance amount if any. On that, the officials of opposite party no.1 told that there was nothing due towards Roop Chand. Thereafter, they requested the officials of the opposite party no.1 to release the documents i.e. sale deed and other documents pertaining to the house which was mortgaged at the time of obtaining the loan, but the officials of opposite party no.1 told that some officials had played fraud and embezzled amount of installments of many people, therefore, the sale and other documents belonging to Roop Chand would be released after settlement of that matter.

                    It has further been pleaded that complainants received notice dated 20.9.2011 from opposite party no.3, vide which a demand was raised for  Rs.2 lacs i.e. Rs.35140/- as Principal, Rs.1,31,107/- as interest and Rs.92044/- as penal interest, Rs.5000/- as expenses. The said demand is illegal and not binding upon the rights of the complainants as Roop Chand had paid all the installments regularly and nothing was due towards him. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, due to which the complainants have suffered mental agony and pain.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Rajesh Kumar representative of opposite party no.1 appeared and filed  statement/calculation. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 filed joint 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 to file the complaint; 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 no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that Roop Chand failed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest and was a defaulter. Only some installments were paid by him. Till final payment of the loan amount alongwith interest thereon is made, the documents of the mortgaged property cannot be returned to the complainants. An amount of Rs.4,34,279/- alongwith future interest was due in the loan account of Roop Chand. The notice issued to the complainants dated 20.9.2011 is perfectly legal and justified. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainants, the affidavit of complainant no.1 Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C27 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Balwinder Singh Development Officer Ex.OP1 and copy of statement of account Ex.OP2  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.                Admittedly, Roop Chand had obtained loan of Rs.one lac from opposite party no.1 and mortgaged his house with opposite parties as collateral security. He had paid some installments during his life time. The copy of the statement of account Ex.C23 shows that an amount of Rs.84,282/-was due towards him on 31.12.2013. Certificate, the copy of Ex.C24, was also issued in that regard by the Secretary of opposite party no.1 on 8.12.2003. Copy of statement of account Ex.OP2 shows that total amount of Rs.539007.24 was outstanding in the loan account of Roop Chand. However, the copies of receipt Ex.P18, C19 and C22 indicate that after 31.12.2003 Roop Chand had deposited five installments of Rs.4114/- each i.e. on 3.2.2004, 4.5.2004, 3.8.2004, 6.11.2004 and 9.2.2005. Those, payments were paid by him through cheques. However, in copy of the statement of account produced by opposite party no.2 and 3 as Ex.OP2, there is no reference regarding deposits of the said amount by Roop Chand. If, the amount deposited by Roop Chand with opposite party no.1 was not transferred to opposite party no.3, Roop Chand could not be made to suffer on that account. In such a situation, the opposite party no.3 can take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against opposite party no.1 for recovery of such amount.

7.                From the aforediscussed evidence on record, it stands established that on 31.12.2003 an amount of Rs.84,222/- was due towards Roop Chand in his loan account. Thereafter, he had deposited 5 installments of Rs.4114/- each, which have not been reflected in the statement of account Ex.OP2 prepared by opposite party no.3. Therefore, opposite parties are bound to adjust the said payment in the loan account of Roop Chand and then prepare fresh statement in respect of the amount due in the loan account. The complainants are not entitled to get returned the original documents of the house mortgaged with the opposite parties for taking loan and ‘No Objection Certificate’ till the entire loan amount is repaid. However, there is no evidence of the complainants to prove that the entire loan amount has been repaid.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merits in the plea of the complainants that entire loan amount was repaid by Roop Chand during his life time and there was nothing due against him. Therefore, the complaint in this regard is dismissed. However, it is ordered that the opposite parties shall adjust the five installments of Rs.4114/- each paid by Roop Chand after 31.12.2003, in his loan account and then calculate the amount outstanding in the loan account. The documents of the mortgaged house and ‘No Objection Certificate’ would be issued by the opposite parties within 30 days of depositing the outstanding amount by the complainants. The complaint stands disposed off accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 07.02.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member