PER:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.
2 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is consumer qua the opposite party/ bank as he had raised bank loan and returned the entire loan amount alongwith interest and other charges. The complainant had raised a bank loan from the opposite party in the shape of CC-STOCKS (SSI) in the name of his firm M/s Mohindra Steel Industries vide account No. 10051888547 from opposite party No. 1. At the time of availing the said loan original sale deed of property/ shed No. 3, bearing Khasra No. 1381, 1261 situated outside Gate Bhagtanwala, Amritsar having document No. 8615 book No. 1 volume No. 895 page 49 dated 30.6.81 in name of Tarlochan Singh father of the complainant, alongwith other original documents were handed over and deposited with opposite party No. 1 to create equitable mortgage in favour of bank. Tarlochan Singh father of the complainant had died on 20.9.2003. The complainant had paid entire outstanding loan amount alongwith interest and other charges to the opposite party on 2.11.2015 and loan account was closed and opposite party has issued NO DUE CERTIFICATE in above loan account of complainant on 3.10.2016. As such, nothing remained payable by the complainant to the opposite party and they were bound to deliver back original sale deed of the property to the complainant on 2.11.2015 when the entire loan amount was paid but the opposite party failed to return the original sale deed to complainant inspite of his numerous personal visits to their office. The complainant also sent legal notice through the counsel to opposite party with request to deliver back original sale deed referred above which the opposite party acknowledged in their reply dated 27.7.2017 but alleged that the original sale deed is lying with the opposite party No. 2 and complainant was asked to take up matter with opposite party No.2. thereafter, the complainant went to the office of opposite party no. 2 and they simply said that they cannot deliver original sale deed directly to the complainant. The complainant had deposited the original sale deed with opposite party No. 1 and as such, it is duty of the opposite party No. 1 to get the original sale deed from opposite party No. 2 promptly and deliver the same to the complainant for which they have failed for the last about 21 months, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed the following reliefs:-
(i) Opposite parties be directed to deliver back original sale deed of property/ shed No. 3, bearing Khasra No. 1381, 1261 situated outside Gate Bhagtanwala, Amritsar having document No. 8615 book No. 1 volume No. 895 page 49 dated 30.6.81 in the name of Tarlochan Singh
(ii) Opposite parties be directly to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension, harassment and agony on account of their above acts on account of their above acts of deficiency in service.
(iii) Costs of complaint may also be awarded in favour of complainant.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and has filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is not legally maintainable as the same is an abuse of the court of law and this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party. The loan account alleged by the complainant i.e. M/s Mohindra Steel Industries, was for a commercial purpose, so this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as it falls under the commercial category. The complainant Manjit Singh intentionally filed the complaint in the name of Manjit Singh as complainant not in the name of M/s Mohindra Steel Industries because he was aware of the fact that if he filed complaint through or in the name of M/s Mohindra Steel Industries, then this commission dismissed the complaint at the preliminary stage only. The complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the knowledge of this commission intentionally and willfully, therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief from this commission as claimed in the present complaint and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The fact of the case is that M/s Mohindra Streel Industries through its partner Tarlok Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Manjit Singh son of Tarlok Singh took a CC limit of Rs. One Lac on 1.3.1999 for manufacturing of wooden screws. The borrower also executed a security documents in favour of the Bank i.e. General Agreement for Medium Term Loan to Small Scale Industries and pledge letter. And as per the bank record and documents the borrower M/s Mohindra Steel Industries pledged machinery, list of which is also attached and borrower has not lodged and deposited the any title deed as stated in the complaint. CC limit is taken by M/s Mohindra Steel Industries and the complainant has not disclosed in his complaint that in which capacity he has filed the present complaint. Moreover, the present complaint has not been filed by the firm M/s Mohindra Steel Industries, so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4 The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and has filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has suppressed various material facts. The complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint. No cause of action has ever arisen in favour of complainant and against the opposite party No.2. The complaint of the complainant is legally not maintainable in the present form and deserve dismissal. The complainant is not consumer of opposite party No. 2. The complaint is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties. The complainant has availed CC limit and he is not consumer of opposite party No. 2.The complainant does not cover under the definition of consumer as he was running firm for commercial purposes. At the relevant time the opposite party No. 2 was not in existing and opposite party No. 2 has not received any loan file nor received any sale deed from the complainant or opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
5 To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents i.e. copy of sale deed Ex. C-1, copy of sale deed Ex. C-2, copy of the no due certificate Ex. C-3, postal receipt Ex. C-4, Copy of letter dated 27.7.2017 Ex. C-5, copy of letter dated 5.8.2017 Ex. C-6, postal receipt Ex. C-7, copy of death certificate Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Santokh Singh Branch Manager, Ex. OP1/1 alongwith documents i.e. copy of letter of agreement in account Mohindra Sales Industries dated 11.3.99 Ex. OP1/2, copy of ancillary agreement dated 11.3.99 Ex. OP1/3, copy of the colatus security pledge machinery dated 11.3.99 Ex. OP1/4, copy of the guarantee agreement of term loan Ex. OP1/5, copy of the hypothecation agreement of CC limit Ex. OP1/6, copy of the machinery pledge letter of CC limit alongwith list of pledged machinery Ex. OP1/7, copy of guarantee agreement of CC limit Ex. OP1/8, copy of the DP note Ex. OP1/9, copy of DP note delivery letter Ex. OP1/10 and closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Siri Chand Chief Manager Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence.
6 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7 In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant has availed loan from the opposite party No. 1 in the year 1999 and has cleared the same in the year 2015. It is also not a dispute between the parties that at the time of clearance of the loan the opposite party No. 1 has issued no due certificate to the complainant. In the present case the main dispute is that the complainant is demanding the original sale deed dated 30.6.1981 from the opposite parties. According to the complainant, at the time of sanctioning the loan, the opposite party No. 1 has not received the original sale deed dated 30.6.1981 from the complainant. The complainant has not placed on record any document which shows that the original sale deed was handed over to the opposite parties by the complainant at the time of sanctioning the loan, On the other hands, the opposite parties have also not placed on record any document which show that the original sale deed was not handed over to the opposite parties by the complainant. To determine this point that the original sale deed dated 30.6.1981 at the time of sanctioning of loan in favour of complainant was obtained by the opposite parties or not ? detailed evidence, cross examination is required and intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case. As such , this District Commission cannot exercise its jurisdiction to decide the intricate questions of law and facts in a summary manner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgment which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
Moreover, the loan was taken in the name of firm i.e. Mohindra Streel Industries and the present complaint has been filed by Manjit Singh. As such, the complaint is also not maintainable.
8 In view of above discussion, the instant complaint is relegated to the Civil Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law. Copy of order will be supplied by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar to the parties as per rules. File be sent back to the District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
Announced in Open Commission
23.08.2022
