JUDGEMENT

                          (As per Shri. Sanjay Motiram Chodankar, President)

           By this Judgment and order we shall dispose of the Complainant dated 11/04/2012 filed by the Complainant and which was admitted by this Forum against the Opposite Party’s (Opposite Party) herein U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

1. The Complainant had obtained a loan from the Saraswat Bank, Panaji branch to purchase the flat from one Mr. Vijay Anand Sakhardande and his wife Smt. Sunita Vijay Sakhardande.

2. Due to financial difficulties and to repay the loan amount to Saraswat Bank the Complainant agreed to sell the said flat to Opposite Party No. 1.

3. The Opposite Party No. 1 obtained loan from the Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd Keri Branch.

4. The Complainant cleared the outstanding loan amount of the Saraswat Bank. The Complainant had executed a deed of sale dated 17^th November 2008 in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1.

5. The Complainant handed over the original conveyance dated 08/10/1997, deed of sale dated 13^th May, 2005 and deed of sale dated 17^th November, 2008 to the Opposite Party No. 1 to produce with his bankers Goa State Co-operative Bank Keri Branch to avail loan to purchase the said flat.

6. The Complainant re-purchased the said flat from the Opposite Party’s by virtue of deed of sale dated 25^th October, 2011 which is duly registered before the sub-registrar of Ilhas.

7. The Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No.  2 paid and cleared the outstanding loan amount of the Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd and the Opposite Party’s collected all the original documents produced with the Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd in respect to the said flat.

8. The points that arises for consideration are :

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party’s?
2. To what relief the Complainant is entitled to ?

9. The Complainant and Opposite Party’s has filed his affidavit in evidence and has relied on the documents mentioned above inter-alia reiterating his stand taken in the Complaint and written arguments. The matter was also orally argued by the Ld. Adv. L. Fernandes for the Complainant and Adv. N. Takekar for Opposite Party.

10. On going through the records, we now proceed to record our findings on the merits of the case. We find that Opposite Party’s had agreed to hand over the documents to the Complainant of the said flat.

11. The Opposite Party’s failed to hand over the documents to the Complainant inspite of various visits to their residence. It has also come in the evidence that the Complainant had re-purchased the said flat from the Opposite Party’s and the duty of the Opposite Party’s to handle over all the original documents of the said flat to the Complainant upon the receiving the consideration.

12.  The Opposite Party adopted and unfair attitude and attempted to make wrongful gains for themselves at the cost of occasioning great loss to the Complainant. In view of the sorry state of affairs the Complainant has been put under the mental agony and gross deficiency in service by the Opposite Party’s . The Opposite Party’s entire conduct in the matter so far has been totally unethical, highly casual and unconcerned and regardless of Complainant.

13.  It is crystal clear that after receiving the due consideration by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party’s has no intention handing the original documents to the Complainant, and therefore for the inconvenience financial loss and mental agony suffered by Complainant . Further it is clear that there is deficiency in service provided by the Opposite Party’s . The Opposite Party’s deliberately put the Complainant in great hardship and mental agony.

14. After minutely considering the Complainant, evidence, documents, written, oral argument interrogatories and answer to the interrogatories by the Complainant on affidavit we are of the considered opinion that there is indeed a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party’s which has caused great inconvenience , financial loss and mental agony to the Complainant and accordingly we pass the following:

O R D E R

The Complaint is partly allowed with following reliefs:-

1. The Opposite Parties are directed and ordered to hand over the original conveyance dated 08^th October, 1997 and deed of sale dated 17^th November, 2008, to the Complainant.

2. The Opposite Parties are directed and ordered to pay to the Complainant compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and hardship, and Cost of Rs.20,000/-

• the said amounts are not paid after appeal period, the said amounts will carry interest @12%p.a. from till final payment.

Pronounced in open court. Proceedings closed.