SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed the petition before this Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant had submitted an application for a housing loan before the 2nd opposite party – Asst. Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, Alappuzha Division, Thiruvambady, Alappuzha on 14.7.1999, along with the title deeds of the land ie. sale deed No. 575/1988 of Ambalappuzha SRO with other documents of the land. It is further contended that the 2nd opposite party told the complainant that he will be informed as and when loan is sanctioned. On several occasions, the complainant visited the office of the second opposite party. In the meantime, the foundation of his house was already constructed and further construction was pending and delayed for so long in the expectation of loan from the opposite parties 1 and 2. Due to the inordinate delay in sanctioning the loan, the complainant demanded back his original title deed of his land and other connected documents; which was originally entrusted with the 2nd opposite party. At the time of demanding the documents, the 2nd opposite party has informed the complainant that a cheque for Rs.8865/- was issued to the complainant vide cheque No.77610 dt. 1.5.2000 and directed the complainant by the 2nd opposite party to refund the above cheque amount with interest for getting back the title deeds. Then the complainant informed the 2nd opposite party through letter that he has never received that cheque and has not encashed that. The complainant has not any a/c in the 3rd opposite party Bank. In this context the opposite party insisted the complainant to collect a letter from the 3rd opposite party Bank, stating that the complainant has not encashed the cheque through that Bank. The 3rd opposite party is not willing to give such a letter to the complainant for releasing the documents by the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum, alleging deficiency of service. <br /> 2. Notices were issued to all opposite parties and it was accepted by all the parties. Opposite parties 1 and 2 set exparte. 3rd opposite party filed version. It is stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and 3rd opposite party; and the complainant is not a consumer of the 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party further stated that the issue of sanction and non-sanction of housing loan is between the complainant and opposite party No.2. 3rd opposite party further stated that the cheque in issue was not received at their office. <br /> 3. Considering the above aspects, this Forum has raised the following issues:-<br /> (1) Whether cheque for Rs.8865/- vide dt. 1.5.2000 was issued by the 1st <br /> opposite party to the complainant or encashed?<br /> <br /> (2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite <br /> parties 1 and 2?<br /> <br /> 4. Issue No.1:- The complainant has stated that he has submitted an application for sanctioning the house loan, before the 2nd opposite party and he has enquired this matter on several occasions. But he has not obtained a positive answer from them even after repeated visits at the office of the 2nd opposite party. Complainant has not obtained any sanction letter of his loan application from 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Complainant has not executed any loan documents in favour of 1st and 2nd opposite party for issuing the cheque and complainant has stated in the affidavit that he has not obtained the same. The 3rd opposite party in their version, has stated that the alleged cheque was not received at their office. The letter No.L2/5748/MNS/dt.20.5.2005 addressed to the Manager Union Bank of India, Alappuzha (3rd opposite party) by the Asst. Secretary, KSH Board, Trivandrum stated that, “on verification of the office records also, it is seen that the above cheque is not encashed. Hence it is requested to issue a non-payment certificate in this regard.” Considering the above aspects it can be seen that the alleged cheque was not issued in favour of the complainant and it was not encahsed. The first issue is found in favour of the complainant. <br /> 5. 2nd issue:- The 2nd opposite party has retained the title deeds and other document without assigning any reason. The reason stated by the 2nd opposite party baseless, since the complainant has not received any communication regarding the sanction of his loan and not executed any loan documents for issuing the cheque. Without execution of loan agreement by the complainant how can the first opposite party can issue the cheque. So the statement regarding the issue of cheque in favour of the complainant cannot be accepted. If the 1st opposite party is to get any further clarification from 3rd opposite party regarding the encashment of the alleged cheque; the 1st opposite party may directly contact the 3rd opposite party and collect the details. There is gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 by retaining the documents. 2nd issue is found in favour of the complainant. <br /> 6. Taking all the above facts into account, and on perusing the documents Exts.A1 to A4 produced by the complainant, we are of the view that the complaint is to be allowed:-<br /> In the result, we direct the opposite party No.1 and 2 to release the title deed No.575/1988 dt. 2.4.1988 (Sale Deed) and all other connected documents presented by the complainant at the time of submitting application, to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Since there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards the compensation and a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of March, 2008.<br /> <br /> SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN:<br /> <br /> SRI. JIMMY KORAH:<br /> <br /> SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI:<br /> <br /> APPENDIX:- <br /> <br /> Evidence of the complainant:- <br /> <br /> PW1 - Manoharan (Witness)<br /> <br /> Ext.A1 - Photo copy of the letter dated 20.7.2005<br /> <br /> Ext.A2 - Photo copy of the letter dated 1.8.2005<br /> <br /> Ext.A3 - Photo copy of the letter dated 27.7.2005<br /> <br /> Ex.A4 - Photo copy of the letter dated 20.5.2005<br /> <br /> Ext.A5 - Photo copy of the letter dated 20.5.2005<br /> <br /> Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Pr/- <br />