BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 25^th DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant by invoking Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 (herein under referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OPs:-

(a) To hand over the original registered sale deed dt.08.12.2011 was executed by Mr.M.Ramaswamy S/o Late Muniyappa and others along with M/s Paras Builders and Developers represented by its Managing Partner Sri G.Madan Mohan Reddy in the name of client. 

(b) Also direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- together with interest for untold hardship, mental agony etc., including award of costs.

(c) Grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses and other costs.

(d) Grant such other reliefs.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has availed loan of Rs.20,00,000/- under GrihaPrakash Scheme with interest at 10.7% payable in 120 monthly installments at Rs.22,357/-.  He received a communication about sanction of loan on 24.11.2011 and loan of Rs.17,68,672/- disbursed to him by cheque bearing No.923639 dated 07.12.2021.

3. The complainant has purchased a property under registered sale deed dated 08.12.2011 from M.Ramaswamy and others along with M/s Paras Builders and Developers for consideration amount.  He furnished the original sale deed along with certified copy of other documents of this property for equitable mortgage with the OPs. 

4. The complainant also contends that even though he repaid entire loan amount on 10.12.2019, but OPs failed to return the documents even after fixing the date 30.12.2019. The original sale deed and other documents are very much required for the complainant to sell his property.  But, OPs failed to return the documents.  Even though, he had approached the officials of the OPs, but failed to return his original sale deed and other documents.  This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency of service.  The OPs put the complainant under mental tension.  Hence, this complaint.

5. After receipt of notice, the OPs appear and file version.  The present complaint involves several complicated questions and such complicated questions cannot be decided in the summary proceedings.  The complainant has to approach the Civil Court for necessary reliefs.  Though admission of advancing of loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to purchase flat bearing No.202, complainant availed loan of Rs.17,68,672/- and agreed to pay interest at 10.7% and monthly installment of Rs.22,357/-.

6. The OPs denied that the complainant furnished original sale deed and other certified copies to the OPs.  In fact, the complainant has furnished only original agreement to sell dated 15.11.2011 executed by M.Ramaswamy and other five persons along with M/s Paras Builders and Developers.  After closure of the loan, the OPs called upon the complainant to receive the original agreement of sell on 30.12.2019. But, complainant refused to receive the same illegally demanding alleged original sale deed.  In fact, the complainant never handed over alleged original sale deed dated 08.12.2011.  After receipt of notice of the complainant, suitable reply has been issued.  There is no deficiency of service.  The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs. They request to dismiss the complaint.

7. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 17 documents.  The affidavit evidence of OPs official has been filed and OPs have relied on one document.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the written arguments of both the parties.    

9. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

10. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative

      Point No.2:- In the negative

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

11. Point Nos.1 and 2:  Most of the facts are not in dispute.  But, only disputed fact is that whether complainant handed over original registered sale deed dated 08.12.2011 to the OPs with certified copies of other documents.  The OPs while disputing this contention of the complainant have stated that the complainant had furnished only original agreement of sale dated 15.11.2011 and even though complainant was called upon to collect original agreement of sell.  But, complainant refused to receive the same.
12. At the first instance, we would like to refer the admitted and facts which are proved. It is proved from the contention of both the parties, affidavit evidence and Ex.A.1 that the complainant had submitted an application for advancement of loan of Rs.20,00,000/-.  Accordingly, OPs sanctioned loan of Rs.20,00,000/- under the scheme Griha Prakash on 24.11.2011 with terms and conditions.  But, it is also proved form the evidence of Ex.A.2, the complainant has purchased immovable property bearing flat No.202 from M.Ramaswamy and five others with consent of the developer M/s Paras Builders and Developers on 08.12.2011.  It means on the date of submission of loan application and sanction of the loan, the complainant was not the owner of flat No.202 and sale deed came to be registered only after sanction of loan.  This property has been sold to the complainant for Rs.19,75,600/-.  Ex.A.3 is the Nil encumbrance.  Ex.A.4 to Ex.14 and Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.17 are not in dispute.  Ex.A.6 is Nil encumbrance.  Ex.A.5 is the statement of loan account which indicates the loan was repaid in monthly installments and lastly, entire loan was repaid on 10.12.2011.  It is true and proved from Ex.A.6 by issuing letter dated 10.12.2019, OPs called upon the complainant to collect the original property documents requesting the complainant to be present along with Co-obligates  In this letter, the OPs only refers original property documents, but there is no reference of original registered sale deed.
13. It is true that by issuing Ex.A.7 notice dated 13.07.2020, the complainant called upon the OPs to return his original sale deed and certified copies.  But, by issuing Ex.A.10 reply dated 03.08.2020 OPs denied deposit of original sale deed.  But, admits that the complainant had deposited only agreement of sell dated 15.11.2011 and called upon the complainant to collect the original agreement of sell.
14. Ex.P.15 is the certificate under Section 65(B) of Evidence Act.  Ex.A.11 is the original sanction letter dated 24.11.2011.  Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.6 are one and the same documents.  Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.5 are the same documents. Ex.P.16 is the wahtsapp chat, it does not help the complainant to prove that he handed over the original registered sale deed with certified copies of other documents.  But, in Ex.P.17, the OPs admits repayment of entire loan and deposit of original sale deed and original sale agreement.  Whereas, Ex.B.1 which bears signature of complainant indicates that the complainant had deposited only sale agreement with the OPs. But, clear admission in letter dated 26.12.2019 indicates that the original sale deed also deposited with the OPs.  In view of this admission, the OPs are not right in saying that the complainant had deposited only original agreement of sell and not deposited original sale deed.
15. The counsel for the OPs vehemently argues that the complaint before this Commission is not maintainable as complainant is not a consumer.  In support of their argument, they places reliance on the following judgements:-

1. I (1999) CPJ 130 in the matter between Canara Bank and another Vs. C.Appu.
2. I (2000) CPJ 324 in the matter between Gurmeet Singh Sodhi Vs. The District Manager, Telephones rendered by Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh.
3. Order in CC No.635/2016 in N.Thyagarajan and another Vs. The Area Operation Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., and another on the file of 4^th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru.

16. In all the three orders relied by the OPs referred the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1997 (2) CPR 3 in the matter between M/s Shankar Tube Wells Vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India. The Hon’ble National Commission took the view that it gives rise to only civil dispute and complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within meaning of C.P.Act. 
17. The advocate for the complainant has not placed any decisions contrary to the ratio involved in the above decisions. 
18. In first two decisions and in the last order, it was categorically held that even after payment of full dues, the loanee is not right to knock the door of Consumer Commission under C.P.Act.  In both first and second decisions and in the third order, it was categorically held that such complaint is not maintainable under C.P.Act.  When the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, the complainant is not right in saying that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP under the provisions of C.P.Act.  When the complainant is not a consumer, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs.
19. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion above, complaint requires to be dismissed.  We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. No costs.
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 25^th March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OPs which are as follows:-