DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.54 of 10-02-2012

Decided on 17-02-2012

Ram Saran Dass son of Sh. Sarwan Dass, aged about 75 years, R/o H.No.19270, Gali

 No.4, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda. .......Complainant

Versus

Punjab National Bank, through its Senior Manager, Bank Street Branch, Bathinda.

......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh. Jai Gopal Goyal, counsel for the complainant

For Opposite parties: Opposite parties not summoned

ORDER

Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-

1. In the instant complaint, the complainant has alleged that he deposited the title deed

Nos.1920, 21, 22/Sale deed as Collateral security in the loan case of M/s Ganesh Machine

with the opposite party for raising the financial assistance by Ganesh Machine and the

entire arrears of the above said loan account of the opposite party, was paid in lump sum

in compromise and both the loan account Nos. PA 128/3 and 130/3 dated 27.10.83 were

settled. The opposite party issued a No Due Certificate dated 22.09.99 with the

understanding to return the original sale deeds to the complainant. The complainant had

requested and visited personally many times to the opposite party for return of original

title deeds of the complainant but the opposite party has been putting on the matter on

one or the other pretext and has failed to return the original sale deeds despite paying the

full loan amount, just to harass the complainant with malafide intention. The complainant

had given written request dated 14.03.2000 to the opposite party but to no avail. The

complainant has urged that he is in dire need of original sale deeds and has suffered a

financial loss of Rs.5,000/- per month as the complainant wanted to raise the loan from

some other financial institution for running his business of Cooler, Washing Machine etc.

which cannot be raised by the complainant. Previously, the complainant had also filed a

consumer complaint bearing No.4 of 03.01.2003 before this Forum which was decided on

17.06.2003. The order passed by the Forum was as, “In view of these circumstances, we

are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and

the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the opposite party is directed to return the

original sale deeds to the complainant as and when are received from the copying agency

of the court of Sr. Sub Judge, Bathinda”. Approximately 8 years have been lapsed but the

opposite party has not returned the title deeds to the complainant. There is no other suit

pending between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of

them claim litigation on the same subject matter, has been previously instituted or finally

decided by any court of competent jurisdiction except the mentioned above.

2. Preliminary hearing is given to the complainant.

3. Record along with written submissions submitted by the complainant, perused.

4. After going through the complaint and written submissions submitted by the

complainant, this Forum finds that the copy of order dated 17.06.2003 has been placed

on file by the complainant. The concluding para of this order is, “In view of these

circumstances, we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the

opposite party and the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the opposite party is

directed to return the original sale deed to the complainant as and when the same are

received from the copying agency of the court of Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda”.

In the above mentioned order 17.06.2003, the complaint was dismissed with direction to

return the original sale deed to the complainant as and when the same would be received

from the copying agency.

5. The complainant has approached this Forum approximately after the lapse of 8 years

from passing of the previous order. Moreover, in this order, nothing has been mentioned

that the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh suit in case he would not receive the

original sale deeds. When he has not received the original sale deeds for such a long

time, why he has not approached this Forum prior to that. The second complaint on the

same cause of action does not lie under the provisions of the law. Thus, this complaint is

time barred and not maintainable, thus hereby dismissed in limini without any order as to

cost.

A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost and file be consigned for record. '

Pronounced in open Forum

17-02-2012

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member