Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/OP challenging the judgment and order No. 7 dated 24.08.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit—I (North) in Complaint Case No. CC/120/2017 on contest with cost against the Appellant/OP.

The Appellant/OP was directed to handover the original title deed to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of the impugned order, failing which, as ordered, the Respondent/Complainant would be entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the Appellant/OP within the given deadline as above, in default, as further ordered, interest @ of 10% p.a. should accrue to the entire sum due to the credit of the Respondent/Complainant till full realization.

Briefly stated, the fact relevant for disposal of the instant Appeal was that the Respondent/Complainant, an employee under the Appellant/OP establishment, in course of his employment, received a loan amounting to Rs. 3,45,000/- from the Appellant/OP for house building purpose. He deposited the original title deed with the Appellant/OP as security to the said loan. The Respondent/Complainant made repayment of the entire loan in time but the Appellant/OP failed to return the original title deed on demand. Since repeated persuasion had failed to yield him the desire result towards getting back the said deed, the Respondent/Complainant filed the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum.

Heard both sides through their respective Ld. Advocates.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP, acknowledging the fact that the title deed in question which was very much deposited with his client’s establishment, was lost and could not be recovered after a thorough search, submitted that he, in the given circumstances, had no alternative but to collect the certified copy of the deed and sent the same by post to the Respondent/Complainant as a gesture of his positive intention towards compliance of the order passed in the Complaint Case by the Ld. District Forum. The Respondent/Complainant, as submitted, refused to accept the said deed.

The Ld. Advocate, went on to submit further that the Respondent/Complainant was an employee of the Appellant/OP’s establishment. Since the issue was related to employer employee relationship, as submitted, the C.P Act, 1986 did not provide any authority to the Consumer Forum to adjudicate on the issue.

The Ld. Advocate, in view of the above, did not find any deficiency in rendering services to the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/OP and prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

Ld. Adversary, in his contrary views, made effort to undo the contentions made by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP. As submitted, under no circumstances a certified copy could be treated in equivalence with the original title deed. This did not come apparent in the Appellant/OP’s attitude also at the time of granting loan when the deposit of the deed in original was emphasized upon. Unfortunately, as he continued, the Appellant/OP had submitted exactly contradictory to the procedure that he himself had adopted at the time of sanctioning the loan.

As regards, eligibility of his client for being treated as Consumer, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the issue did not relate to any service matter of an employee with his employer. It only involved the quality service rendered to the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/OP. There being conspicuous deficiency in rendering services, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order.

Perused the papers on record. Considered submissions of the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides. It appeared that the issue did not have any association of the service related matter of the Respondent/Complainant as an employee with the Appellant/OP, the employer. It appeared to be related only to non-refunding of the vital documents—title deeds in original on the instant occasion—to the Respondent/Complainant on fulfillment of the terms of repayment with the entire loan with interest by him. We, therefore, had no reason to consider with the Respondent/Complainant did not come within the meaning of Consumer as per provision of the Act, 1986.

Further, we felt that the Appellant/OP had violated the terms of agreement by not returning the document like the title deed of the vital assets like the purchased house of the Respondent/Complainant. The documents, as submitted and as revealed from the papers on record were lost from the custody of the Appellant/OP who could not recover the same after thorough searching of his office.

We are in full agreement with the observation of the Ld. District Forum that there was height of deficiency in rendering services on the part of the Appellant/OP and feel that the impugned order should remain uninterfered with.

Hence,

Ordered

that the Appeal be and the same stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed. No order as to costs.