Haryana

StateCommission

A/68/2017

HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SOLATH

11 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       68 of 2017

Date of Institution:     19.01.2017

Date of Decision :     11.01.2018

 

The Haryana State Cooperative Housing Federation, Bays No.49-52, Sector-2, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Naresh Kumar s/o Sh. Nihal Chand, Resident of House No.352, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      The Krishna Cooperative House Building Society Limited, 152, Sant Nagar, Hansi Chowk, Karnal through its Secretary.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.            

 

Argued by:          Shri Pardeep Solath, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Naresh Kumar-respondent in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        The Haryana State Cooperative Housing Federation – Opposite Party No.2 is in appeal against the order dated December 14^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.352 of 2011.

2.                Naresh Kumar – complainant (respondent No.1 herein) at the time of construction of his house borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from The Jyoti Co-Operative House Building Society Limited (for short the ‘Jyoti Co-operative Society’). The loan amount advanced was to be paid by the complainant in 80 equal quarterly installments amounting to Rs.1583.20 each with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. The loan amount was advanced before the month of May, 1986. The complainant made payment of installments of the loan amount and deposited total amount of Rs.85,577/- with Jyoti Co-operative Society.  Thereafter, the Jyoti Co-operative Society was merged with The Krishna Co-operative House Building Society Limited – Opposite Party No.1 (for short ‘Krishna Co-operative Society’).  After merger, the complainant made payment of an amount of Rs.66,095/- with the opposite party No.2/appellant. In this way, the complainant made payment of an amount of Rs.1,51,672/- till November 13^th, 2004.  In fact, out of the total loan amount, only an amount of Rs.37,200/- was paid to the complainant and remaining amount of Rs.2800/- was kept as security refundable with interest at the time of final settlement of the loan amount. In connection with this loan, House No.352, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal, belonging to the complainant was mortgaged by deposit of title-deed.  Despite payment of the loan amount, the opposite parties refused to redeem the mortgaged property, to issue No Dues Certificate and to hand over the documents relating to ownership of the mortgaged property to the complainant.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to return the original documents relating to ownership of the mortgaged property; to redeem the mortgaged property bearing House No.352, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal; to refund an amount of Rs.2800/- as security with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of deposit and to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony.

4.                Opposite Party No.1 - The Krishna Co-operative House Building Society Limited filed its written version with the plea that Naresh Kumar–complainant was advanced loan amount as mentioned in the complaint from the Jyoti Co-operative Society in the year 1986. The Jyoti Co-operative Society was merged with the opposite party No.1 – Krishna Co-operative Society, vide letter dated March 05^th, 1999. The complainant made payment of installments in the Society up to November 13^th, 2004 and now as on April 16^th, 2012 an amount of Rs.37,962/- was due towards the complainant. After filing reply, the opposite party No.1 did not adduce any evidence and stopped appearing in the proceedings from March 04^th, 2015. The opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex parte.

5.                Opposite Party No.2 - The Haryana State Cooperative Housing Federation in its written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. It is admitted that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was advanced as home loan to the complainant by the Jyoti Co-operative Society in the year 1986 for construction of a house by the complainant on plot No.352, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal. It is also admitted fact that the loan amount was to be paid back by the complainant in 80 equal quarterly instalments as mentioned in the complaint. It is also admitted that the Jyoti Co-operative Society by whom loan amount was advanced, stood merged in the year 1999 with the opposite party No.1. It is denied that the complainant made payment of installments of the loan amount regularly. It is pleaded that the complainant made payment of only an amount of Rs.51,347.68 and still an amount of Rs.1,63,866.87 was due towards the complainant as on July 31^st, 2011. As the total loan amount has not been paid back, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed in the complaint. The opposite party No.2 prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

6.                Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

7.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated December 14^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite party No.2 to return the original title-deed of the mortgaged plot owned by the complainant and to redeem plot bearing No.352, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal from mortgage within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of ‘No Dues Certificate’ by the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. The opposite party No.2 was also directed to issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the complainant in the loan account on March 31^st, 2016. ‘No Dues Certificate’ shall be issued after adjustment of the amount, if any, due towards the complainant or the opposite parties.

8.                Aggrieved with the order December 14^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite party No.2 – The Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Limited, has filed the present appeal No.68 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

9.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent in person and also perused the case file.

10.              During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was advanced as loan by the Jyoti Co-operative Society to the complainant for construction of his house over his plot bearing No.352, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal. It is also admitted fact that out of the total loan amount of Rs.40,000/-, only an amount of Rs.37,200/- was paid to the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs.2800/- was kept by the Jyoti Co-operative Society as security to be adjusted with interest at the time of final settlement of the loan amount. It is also admitted fact that the Jyoti Co-operative Society stood merged with the opposite party No.1 – Krishna Co-operative Society vide letter dated March 05^th, 1999. The construction of the house is complete and the loan amount advanced has been utilized by the complainant.

11.              It is admitted fact that the total loan amount was to be paid by the complainant in 80 equal quarterly installments of Rs.1583.20 with effect from the month of May, 1986. As per version of the complainant, he made payment of an amount of Rs.85,577/- up to February 04^th, 1999 till merger of the Jyoti Co-operative Society with the opposite party No.1 vide payment receipts Exhibit C-2 to Exhibit C-48. It is evident from the receipts regarding payment of the loan amount Exhibit C-49 to Exhibit C-71 that the complainant made payment of an amount of Rs.66,095/- from August 16^th, 1999 up to November 13^th, 2004. 

12.              Apart from it, during pendency of the complaint Naresh Kumar recorded his statement on December 14^th, 2016 and adduced in evidence photo copy of the receipt regarding payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on March 31^st, 2016 (Exhibit C-74). In this way, regarding payment of the above mentioned amount of Rs.2,51,672/- there appears to be no controversy. It appears that the opposite party No.1 did not seriously contest this litigation.  Only one page reply has been filed mentioning that as on April 16^th, 2012 an amount of Rs.37,962/- was due towards the complainant. It clearly appears that the opposite party No.1 could not deny payment of the loan amount, as discussed above, Rs.2,51,672/-. Legally and technically, the borrower was required to make payment of the loan amount in the beginning to the Jyoti Co-operative Society and after merger of the Jyoti Co-operative Society with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 as well as the Jyoti Co-operative Society was required to give correct information to the opposite party No.2 as and when installments of the loan amount were paid or deposited by the complainant. It appears that the opposite party No.1 as well as the Jyoti Co-operative Society did not inform the opposite party No.2 regarding deposit of the loan amount regularly and correctly.

13.              It is strange that the opposite party No.1 did not dispute the payment of the loan amount by the complainant, as mentioned in the complaint and as mentioned in document Exhibit C-74 and the opposite party No.2 has taken plea that only an amount of Rs.51,347.68 was repaid by the borrower and an amount of Rs.1,63,866.87 was due towards the complainant as on July 31^st, 2011. The opposite party No.1 has taken plea that only an amount of Rs.37,962/- was due towards the complainant on April 16^th, 2012 but the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt Exhibit C-74 on March 31^st, 2016.  Four years’ interest upon the amount of Rs.37,962/- also cannot exceed Rs.63,000/-. In this way, from any angle, we feel there should not be any hesitation in holding that the total loan amount has been repaid by the complainant. It also appears that problem was due to mishandling as well as carelessness and negligence on the part of the officials/officers of the opposite parties No.1 and 2.  In these circumstances, much discussion is not needed of the Statement of Account Exhibit O-2.  If the opposite party No.1 or the Jyoti Co-operative Society did not give information to the opposite party No.2 regularly and timely, the complainant cannot be penalized for it. The duty of the opposite party No.2 is to keep supervision and check regarding administrative matters as well as financial irregularities in the Krishna Co-operative Society – opposite party No.1 and other such like co-operative societies. The opposite party No.2 instead of initiating any step towards the opposite party No.1 and its officers and officials preferred to contest this litigation and also preferred to file appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum un-necessarily. The opposite parties also should have taken sympathetic view towards the complainant and should not have behaved like private money lenders. The complainant had received only an amount of Rs.37,800/- for construction of his house and record shows that by this time he had already paid an amount of Rs.2,51,672/-. We feel the opposite party No.2 should be given direction to redeem the mortgaged property, to hand over the title-deed of the mortgaged property to the complainant at the earliest. The findings given by the learned District clearly appear to be legal, valid and justified. Resultantly, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated December 14^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum. Hence, the findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

14.              The statutory amount of Rs.2750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 11.01.2018

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

CL