Punjab

Sangrur

CC/385/2015

Sunita Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                   

                                                                   Complaint no. 385                                                                                              

                                                                  Instituted on:  01.06.2015                                                                            

                                                                  Decided on:    29.03.2016

 

1. Sunita Jain widow of Shri Abhey Kumar Jain,
2. Ameesh jain,    3.  Ashwani Jain, 4.   Abhishek Jain sons of Sh. Abhey Jain, all resident of House No.B-31/18, Inside Kelon Gate, Malerkotla.   

…. Complainants.    

                                  

                                               Versus

 

1.     LIC Housing Finance Ltd. through its Incharge, S.C.O. 2445-46, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

2.     LIC Housing Finance Ltd; through its Incharge, Laxmi Insurance building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

3.     Oberoi Finance Group, through its Incharge, # 2, J.P.Nagar, Sangrur, District Sangrur.    

             ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&2: Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Advocate.                    

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.  3:      Shri Sumir Fatta, Advocate.                     

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

           

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Sunita Jain, Ameesh Jain, Ashwani jain, Abhishek Jain complainants have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that complainant number 1  obtained  loan  from OPs No.1 and 2 through OP No.3.  At the time of  obtaining the loan, the complainant number 1  submitted four title deeds of her house. The complainants repaid the entire loan amount and  in this respect no due certificate/ letter dated 17.01.2015  was issued by the OPs. Thereafter the complainant number 1 requested the OPs to return the four title deeds  but they did not return the same despite repeated requests. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to return the original four title deeds of the house of the complainant Sunita Jain,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.80000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs No.1&2, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and  suppression of material facts have been taken up. On merits, it has been stated by the OPs No.1&2 that they verbally and telephonically stated the complainants that when  the documents will be traced then same will be handed over to them.  It has been further stated that OPs No.1&2 tried to trace the title deeds of the complainants but  same were not traced out. It has been denied that the OPs  handed over the title deeds to another person. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.1&2.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of locus standi and cause of action have been taken up. On merits, it has been stated that  OP no.3 was only the recovery/ collection agency for OPs No.1&2at Sangrur and  OP No.3 has no concern  whatsoever with the sale deeds of the complainant as the same are not in possession  of the OP No.3.  

4.             The complainants have tendered in their evidence documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs1&2/1 and  Ex.OPs.3/1 and closed evidence.

5.             After having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents placed on record, we find that it has been admitted by the OPs No.1 and 2 that complainants had obtained loan from them through OP no.3 and at the time of sanctioning the loan, the complainants had  deposited four title deeds with the OPs no. 1&2. It is also not disputed that the complainants have deposited the entire loan amount with the OPs.

6.             The only question for determination in this case before us is that why the OPs did not return the title deeds to the complainant although the complainants deposited the entire loan amount with the OPs and the OPs also issued a no due certificate in this regard, despite repeated demands of the complainants. As already stated, the OPs no.1 and 2 specifically mentioned in their reply that they could not trace out the four title deeds of the complainants which were deposited by them at the time of obtaining the loan from the OPs no.1&2 meaning thereby the OPs no.1&2 have misplaced the four title deeds of the complainants. Moreover, the OPs no.1 and 2 have also stated in their reply that when the documents (title deeds) of the complainants will be traced the same will be handed over to them.  We feel that it is main duty to the OPs No.1&2 to keep the title deeds of the complainant in safe custody and also to return the same after repaying the entire loan amount by the complainants but the OPs no.1&2 have totally failed to do their crucial duty. In this manner, we feel that the OPs no.1&2 are deficient in service for not keeping the title deeds of the complainants in safe custody and also in not returning the same to the complainants after repaying the entire loan amount. 

7.             So, in view of the facts mentioned above, we find that the Ops No.1&2 are deficient in service and accordingly we  allow the complaint and direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to handover the sale deeds  in question to the complainants whenever the same are found out and if the sale deeds in question are misused by any person or department in that case OPs No.1&2 will be liable for the same and will face consequences. The OPs no.1&2  are burdened with costs of Rs.20000/-  being compensation to be paid to the complainants on account of mental tension, physical and harassment. We further order the OPs No.1&2 to pay an amount of Rs.5500/-  to the complainants as litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

March 29, 2016.

-

 

 

     ( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)     (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                        

       Member                 Member                    President

      BBS/-