Date of filing:24.12.2013

                                                                                                     Date of Disposal:3.9.2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::

                                            VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.       

        Present:  SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)

                         SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L.,              MEMBER

      WEDNESDAY, THE 3^rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.

                                                            C.C.No. 51 OF 2014                

Between :

Smt Medasani Sakku Bai, W/o Venkata Subba Rao, 68 years, R/o D.No.G8, Ram’s VSR Apartment, Opposite Siddhartha Public School, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada – 520 010, Rep., by her son and GPA Holder Sri Medasani Bhavani Prasad, S/o Venkata Subba Rao, 47 years, R/o D.No.G8, Ram’s VSR Apartment, Opposite  Siddhartha Public School, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada – 520 010.

                                                                                                                    ….. Complainant.

And

LIC Housing Finance Limited, Governorpet, Vijayawada, Rep., by its Area Manager.                                                                                                      …....Opposite Party.

This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 25.8.2014 in the presence of Sri Venket S.P.M. and G.Ravindra Prasad, Advocates for complainant and Sri P.Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:

O  R  D  E  R

(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            The averments of the complaint are in brief:

1.         The complainant herein is the GPA holder of Smt M.Sakku Bai the mother of the complainant.  When she was an employee in Telecom Department she along with her husband availed housing loan of Rs.60,000/- from the opposite party on 28.2.1994 under GPH scheme for construction of house at Pedapulipaka Village of Krishna District by mortgaging her registered sale deed bearing document No.2171/1992 dated 23.4.1992 towards security.  The mother of the complainant defaulted in repayment of the said loan.  Therefore the opposite party filed a suit in OS No.378/1997 on the file of Hon’ble 1^st Additional Sub Judge, Vijayawada for recovery of a sum of Rs.94,160/- and wherein the opposite party clearly accepted that the mother of the complainant deposited her sale deed with them.  Subsequently both parties got compromised and according to the compromise terms the complainant’s mother paid a sum of Rs.1,67,400/- to the opposite party on 12.11.2005 by way of cheque. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party several times and requested them to return the original title deed deposited with them.   But the opposite party postponed the same on one pretext or the other.  The husband of the complainant’s mother was died and she was unable to follow up the matter with the opposite party.  Under the said circumstances the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite party to return the original title deed along with compensation.  The opposite party received the said notice and kept quiet which amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to return the original sale deed dated 23.4.1992 executed in favour of the complainant’s mother which was deposited with the opposite party, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and to pay costs.

2.         The version of the opposite party is in brief:

            The opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the mother of the complainant deposited her original registered sale deed with the opposite party as security for the loan.  The opposite party filed a suit in OS.No.378 of 1997 against the complainant and others for recovery of suit amount by enforcing the mortgage against the property covered under the said sale deed.  The said suit OS.378 of 1997 filed by the opposite party was decreed with costs on 25.7.2003.  Against the decree and judgement in respect of rate of interest awarded by the learned lower court the opposite party preferred AS.No.37/2003 on the file of 7^th Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.  The said appeal was also allowed on 15.9.2005.  There upon the complainant discharged the loan amount in the month of November, 2005.  After closure of the loan account and after taking return of the original title deed i.e., registered sale deed from the Hon’ble Court the opposite party return the same to the complainant during December, 2005.  After taking return of the original title deed from the opposite party the complainant never approached the opposite party and she never requested nor demanded the opposite party for her title deed.  The opposite party believes and states that the complainant must have lost her original title deed somewhere after taking return of the same from the opposite party and now intentionally she is trying to blackmail the opposite party for return of the same.  Long silence of the complainant she speaks volumes for her complicity.  The complaint is time barred in view of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The cause of action for filing the complaint could not be assumed to continue till the date of filing this complaint i.e., 23.12.2013.  There is no lapse or omission committed by the opposite party since the original title deed was already return to the complainant.  The opposite party has no necessity to give reply for the notice dated 15.4.2013 got issued by the complainant.  The opposite party already return the original title deed to the complainant in December, 2005 beyond control of the opposite party it cannot constitute the deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled to pay claim towards damages for mental agony and suffering as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.  

3.         On behalf of the complainant she gave her affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 Ex.A.8 and on behalf of the opposite party Sri Mohd. Nooman, Area Manager of the opposite party gave his affidavit and no document is marked.

4.         Heard and perused.

5.         Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:

            1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party

     towards the complainant in not returning the original sale deed of the  

     complainant even though she repaid the loan amount?

 2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?

            3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?

POINTS 1 AND 2:-

6.         On perusing the material on hand the complainant is the G.P.A. holder of his mother Smt M.Sakkubai under Ex.A.8 executed on 15.4.2013 by his mother.  When the mother of the complainant was an employee in Telecom Department she along with her husband availed housing loan of Rs.60,000/- from the opposite  party on 28.2.1994 under Ex.A.5 GPH scheme for construction of house at Pedapulipaka Village of Krishna District by mortgaging her registered sale deed bearing document No.2171/1992 dated 23.4.1992 towards security. It is an admitted fact that the mother of the complainant deposited her title deed with the opposite party as security for the loan of Rs.60,000/-.  As the mother of the complainant defaulted in repayment of the said loan, the opposite party filed a suit in O.S.No.378/1997 Ex.A.6 on the file of Hon’ble 1^st Additional Sub Judge, Vijayawada for recovery of a sum of Rs.94,160/-.  As per opposite party the suit was decreed with costs on 25.7.2003 and against the decree and judgement in respect of rate of interest awarded by the lower Court, the opposite party referred A.S.No.37/2003 on the file of 7^th Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and the said appeal was also allowed on 15.9.2005 and the mother of the complainant discharged the loan amount of Rs.1,67,400/- to the opposite party on 12.11.2005 by way of cheque through her saving bank account Ex.A.1.  The complainant says that after receiving the loan amount, the opposite party did not return the registered sale documents deposited by her mother.  On several requests of his mother the opposite  party failed to return the said documents.  Therefore the mother of the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.A.2 and postal receipt Ex.A.3 dated 15.4.2013 demanding the opposite party to return the title deeds together with supporting documents deposited with opposite  party at the time of availing loan, if the opposite party fails to do so she will take legal actions against the opposite party in the court of law.  The opposite party received the said legal notice under Ex.A.4 but kept quiet without giving any reply for the same.

7.         The opposite party says that on decree given by the Hon’ble 7^th Additional District Judge at Vijayawada, the mother of the complainant discharged the loan amount with interest in the month of November, 2005 and after taking return of the original title deed from the Hon’ble court the opposite party return the said documents to the mother of the complainant during December, 2005.  After taking the original sale deeds she never approached the opposite party and never requested nor demanded the opposite party for her title deed.  She was silence for a long period nearly eight years after discharging her loan. The complaint is time barred in view of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The cause of action for filing the complaint could not be assumed to continue till the date of filing this complaint on 24.12.2013.  As there is no lapse or omission committed by the opposite party since the original title deed was already returned to the mother of the complainant, the opposite party has no necessity to give reply for the notice dated 15.4.2013.

8.         On hearing the both parties and perusing the documents we, the Forum noted that the above said dispute between the mother of the complainant and opposite party settled in the year 2005 ending.  The opposite party says that on discharging the loan as per orders of the Hon’ble Court, the opposite party returned the original documents to the mother of the complainant.  She kept quiet nearly for eight years and got issued  Ex.A.2 on 15.4.2013 legal notice to the opposite party to return the original sale deed of her.  Mear issuance of notice cannot create limitation for filing of complaint.    As per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the limitation for filing of complaint is two years from the date of cause of action. If the mother of the complainant did not receive the original sale deed, she need not kept silent till 15.4.2013 to issue notice to opposite party.  As she was an employee, she could not kept quiet, if she did not receive the original sale deed from the opposite party.  There is no piece of evidence in written to show that she requested the opposite party to return the original documents except Ex.A.2 dated 15.4.2013.  The G.P.A. was given to the complainant on 15.4.2013 only to file this complaint.  We do not find any whisper about the non-return of original sale deed by the opposite party in the said G.P.A.  As there is no documentary evidence to show that the mother of the complainant did not receive original sale deed from the opposite party, we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant hence she could not get any relief and more over as the complaint is time barred it is not maintainable in this Forum.  Accordingly these points are answered.

POINT No.3:-

9.         In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 3^rd day of September, 2014.

PRESIDENT(FAC)                                                                               MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                                         For the opposite parties:-

P.W.1 Smt Medasani Sakku Bai                                       D.W.1 Mohd. Nooman,

Complainant                                                                         Area Manager

(by affidavit)                                                                          of the opposite party

(by affidavit) 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Complainant:-

Ex.A.1             06.06.2003   Photocopy of pass book.

Ex.A.2                        15.04.2013    Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.A.3                        15.04.2013    Postal receipt.

Ex.A.4                .    .              Postal acknowledgement.,

Ex.A.5                .    .              Photocopy of Form of mortgage deed to be executed when

                                                the property is freehold.

Ex.A.6                           .    .               Photocopy of plaint filed in the court of the Subordinate

                                                Judge at Vijayawada.

Ex.A.7                            .    .              Copy of Deed particulars of document.

Ex.A.8                            .    .              Written statement filed on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd

                                                defendants in the court of 1^st Addl. Subordinate Judge,

                                                Vijayawada (copy) along with Photocopy of G.P.A.

For the opposite parties:-

            Nil.

                                                                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT(FAC)