Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/48/2017

Ramesh Chandra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Manager, LIC Housing Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.Wiliam Akbar Chand

16 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,UTTARAKHAND
23/16, Circular Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001
Dehradun-248001
Final Order
 
First Appeal No. A/48/2017
( Date of Filing : 30 Mar 2017 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 03/03/2017 in Case No. 514/2014 of District Haridwar)
 
1. Ramesh Chandra
s/o late Chohal Singh r/o Gali No. 2 Ambedkar Nanagr, Jawalapur,Haridwar.
Haridwar
Uttarakhand
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Regional Manager, LIC Housing Ltd.
Uttaranchal Bizzness Center, I.S.T., Floor-53A Rajpur Raod,Dilaram Bazar,Dehradun,
Dehradun
Uttarakhand
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MS. Kumkum Rani PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. B. S. Manral MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Mr.Wiliam Akbar Chand, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 Mr. Sandeep Talwar, Advocate for the Respondent 1
Dated : 16 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 03.03.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”), whereby learned District Commission has dismissed the consumer complaint No. 514 of 2014, styled as Sh. Ramesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, LIC Housing Limited, in absence of the appellant / complainant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A copy of the consumer complaint was filed along with the memo of appeal, wherein it was alleged that the appellant / complainant obtained a housing loan from the respondent / opposite party on dated 19.10.2022 bearing loan account No. 13033003124 and file No. 13401256.  The housing loan was repaid in full and final satisfaction by the complainant on dated 24.04.2013.  At the time of obtaining the housing loan, the complainant had submitted original sale deed and two original policies with the opposite party.  When the loan amount was fully repaid, the sale deed as well as the above policies should have been returned by the opposite party to the complainant, but inspite of several requests, the same were not returned.  Hence, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission concerned.

The certified copy of the impugned order is available on record, which shows that on dated 03.03.2017, the consumer complaint was dismissed by the District Commission in absence of the complainant.

On having been aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been submitted by the complainant as appellant, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2017 and remand the case to the District Commission for hearing afresh according to law.

During the course of hearing of appeal, the respondent – finance company has returned the original sale deed, original map and copy of NOC to learned counsel for the appellant.  Thus, the desired relief has been granted to the appellant / complainant during the pendency of the appeal.  Therefore, it is not proper and appropriate to set aside the impugned order because the relief sought in the consumer complaint, has been granted to the appellant / complainant, during the course of hearing of the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant / complainant had executed an agreement to sell with someone by receiving Rs. 1,00,000/- towards        part-payment of consideration amount and on account of non-furnishing the original sale deed and policies, the appellant was unable to execute the sale deed in favour of the purchaser.  He further submitted that almost after a lapse of 11 years’ from the date of full and final payment of the loan amount, the original sale deed, original map and copy of NOC has been given to the appellant / complainant on dated 14.02.2024, therefore, the appellant should be compensated by awarding some reasonable compensation / costs to the appellant / complainant.

It is worth to mention that after the full and final payment of the loan amount by the complainant on 24.04.2013, the finance company was obliged to return the original sale deed as well as other documents pledged with it in the form of mortgage, to the borrower within a maximum period of one month.  Thus, the respondent has certainly committed gross delay in returning the original documents pledged with it, to the complainant.  Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant / complainant is entitled to get special costs to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- from the respondent, which the respondent is directed to pay to the appellant within a period of one month.

For the reasons aforesaid, there remains no occasion to continue the present appeal, as the same has been rendered infructuous on account of the return of original documents by the respondent to the appellant / complainant.  Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

File be consigned to the record room along with copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned District Commission for perusal, information and necessary action.

 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Kumkum Rani]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B. S. Manral]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.