Haryana

Karnal

578/2012

Chander Shekhar S/o Raja Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Krishna Cooperative House Building Society Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Bhagwan Dass

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                Complaint No. 578 of 2012

                                                                Date of instt.: 7.12.2012

                                                                 Date of decision:31 .03.2016

 

Chander Shekhar son of Shri Raja Ram resident of house No.771, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal.

.                                                                             ……..Complainant. .

                                      Vs.

1.The Krishana Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd. 152, Sant Nagar, Hansi Chowk, Karnal through its Secretary.

2.The Managing Director, Haryana State Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd. Bays No.49-52, Second Floor Sector -2, Panchkula.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.            

                    Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.Bhagwan Dass Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sandeep Rana Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

ORDER:     

 

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that  he obtained loan of  Rs.two lakhs from Opposite Parties for construction of his house no.771, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal.  The original documents of the said house were deposited and the same was mortgaged with the Opposite Parties. He paid the entire loan amount to the Opposite Parties in  installments. The Opposite Party no.1 prepared the statement of accounts regarding pending dues upto 1.11.2011 alongwith interest thereon upto 30.11.2012 and the penal interest. As per the statement of accounts, a sum of Rs.3,96,368/- was outstanding against him and he paid an amount of Rs.3,85,000/- through demand draft no.670309 dated 29.11.2012 in favour of Opposite Party No.2 and  Rs.11368/- in cash, vide receipt no.4494 dated 29.11.2012.  Thus, the entire outstanding amount was paid by him to the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the Opposite Party no.1 issued “No Dues Certificate” in  his favour on 30.11.2012.  He was assured by the Opposite Parties that original documents would be returned to him within one or two days alongwith the redemption of the mortgage deed.  He visited the office of Opposite Party no.1 , but was told that original documents and mortgage deed were to be returned by the Opposite Party no.2. Thereafter, he visited the Opposite Party No.2 twice for return of the documents, but Opposite Party no.2 refused to return the same. In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party no.2 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it has been admitted that an amount of Rs.3, 96,368/- was outstanding against the complainant. It has been submitted that the complainant failed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest. Therefore, the original documents cannot be returned to him. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                No written statement could be filed by the Opposite Party no.1 despite availing  number of opportunities.

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

 

5.                On the other hand,  in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Sh.Balwinder Singh, Divisional Officer Ex.OP1/A and statement of accounts Ex.OP1 have been tendered.

 

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

7.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant obtained loan from the Opposite Parties for construction of his house and for that purpose deposited the documents relating to the said house and also mortgaged the house with the Opposite Parties.

 

8.                As per the case of the complainant, he had deposited all the installments and paid the loan amount alongwith interest thereon upto 30.11..2012 and penal interest. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Opposite Party no.2 that the complainant has failed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest. Thus, the main question which arises for consideration is whether the complainant has repaid the entire loan or some amount is still outstanding against him.

 

9.                The complainant has produced the copy of the statement of accounts prepared by the Opposite Party no.1 Ex.C6, according to which an amount of Rs. 3,96,368/- was outstanding against him upto 30.11.2012. He had paid the amount of Rs.3, 85,000/- on 29.11.2012 by way of demand draft in favour of the Opposite Party no.2, the copy of which is Ex.C5 and the Opposite Party no.1 issued receipt Ex.C4. in that regard The complainant also deposited Rs.11368/-  with the  Opposite Party no.1 on the same day and receipt, the copy of which is Ex.C3, was issued by the Opposite Party no.1. Thereafter, the Opposite Party no.1 issued No “ Dues  Certificate” the copy of which is Ex.C2, in favour of the complainant. These documents are sufficient to prove that the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount.  Even, the Opposite Party no.2 in para no.2 of the written statement admitted that a sum of Rs.3, 96,368/- was outstanding which was to be paid by the complainant.  It is established from the documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 that the said amount was paid by the complainant on 29.11.2012.

 

10.               In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we arrive at the conclusion that the complainant has been able to prove that he had paid the entire loan amount to the Opposite Parties and thereafter “No Dues Certificate” was issued in his favour by the Opposite Party no.1. Therefore, no importance can be attached to the statement of accounts produced by the Opposite Party no.2. If, the amount deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Party no.1 was not transferred to Opposite Party no.2, the complainant cannot be made to suffer on that account. In such a situation, the Opposite Party no.2 can take appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law against Opposite Party no.1 for recovery of the balance amount, if any.  After payment of the entire loan amount and issuance of “No Dues Certificate”, in favour of the complainant, the Opposite Parties were bound to return to him his title deed and redeem his house. The act of the Opposite Parties not returning the original title deed and redeeming of the house from mortgage amounted to deficiency in services on their part.

 

11.               As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party no.2 to return the original title deeds of the complainant and other loan documents in respect of house No.771, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal and to redeem the said house from mortgage, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance

Announced
dated:31.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Bhagwan Dass Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sandeep Rana Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 31.03.2016.

Announced
dated:29.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.Bhagwan Dass Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sandeep Rana Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:31.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.