Haryana

Kurukshetra

175/2016

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Phewoa Shree ganesh - Opp.Party(s)

Mahinder Singh

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.175/16.

Date of instt.17.6.16. 

                                        Date of Decision: 22.03.18.

Kuldeep Singh son of Atma Singh resident of Tibba Farm, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

•  

                        Versus

1. The Pehowa Shree-Ganesh Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Ambala Road, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
2. The Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Limited, Bays No.49-52, Second Floor, Sector-2, Panchkula.

………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

                                                                                      

Before       Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

 

Present :    Sh. M.S.Lukhi, Adv. for complainant.               

                 Sh.Sanjiv Walia, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Kuldeep Singh against The Pehowa Shree Ganesh Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Pehowa and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant obtained loan amounting to Rs.75,000/- from the Ops which was to be disbursed to the complainant in three equated installments i.e. Rs.22,500/- on 25.1.1991, Rs.30,000/- on 14.2.1991 and Rs.22,500/- on 25.1.1991, Rs.30,000/- on 14.2.19991 and Rs.22,500/- on 1.4.1991 and the complainant has to repay the loan amount in installments of 20 years. The complainant deposited the whole amount along with interest i.e. Rs.3,17,123/- to the Ops and he contacted the Ops many a times to render his loan amount by accepting it as Nil and to return his original sale deed but they did not pay any heed. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to render the loan amount as Nil, to release the original sale deed and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

4.            Upon notice, opposite parties appeared OP No.1 contested the complaint by filing written statement alleging therein that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action; that the complainant has obtained loan of Rs.75,000/- from the answering OP but he did not repay the loan amount. A total sum of Rs.3,44,609/- is due against the complainant including interest up to 28.2.2017 and is also entitled interest w.e.f. 1.3.2017 till its actual realization. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. 

5.            Opposite party 2 also contested the complaint by contested the complaint by filing written statement alleging therein that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has obtained loan of Rs.75,000/- from Op No.1 but the complainant has not repaid the loan amount and a sum of Rs/.2,98,251/- is due against the complainant including the interest up to 30.6.2016 and the OP No.1 is also entitled interest w.e.f.1.7.2016 till its actual realization. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. 

6.             Both the parties have led their evidence.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.             The contention of the counsel for the complainant is that the complainant had deposited the various amounts with the Ops but all the said amounts have not been adjusted and now the Ops may be directed to see the matter in question.

9.            The counsel for the complainant seems to be true.  In such like circumstances, the Ops are directed to issue the fresh up to date statement of accounts to the complainant and to make the adjustment of all the amounts deposited by the complainant with the Ops.  Further, the Ops are directed to allow the inspection of all the receipts of amounts deposited by the complainant with the Ops within the period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of order. So, the present complaint stands disposed of with the above said directions.  This order should be complied within a period of three months, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:22.03.2018. 

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member