By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get back his document which is deposited before the opposite party and to get cost and compensation due to the non return of his title deeds.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant had availed a housing loan to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- during the year 2004 from M/s. Wiezman Homes Ltd. Towards security for the loan complainant had deposited Title deeds pertaining to the immovable property owned and possessed by him in R.S. No.449/13 in Poothady Village, Sulthan Bathery Taluk. As per the chart issued by the above said company the duration fixed to repay the loan with interest was from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2014 ie within 120 months. The monthly installments was fixed as Rs.2,830/-. The complainant discharged his payments in due course through opposite party No.2 who is the collection agent of opposite party No.1. Meanwhile the above said company from which the complainant availed loan was amalgamated in AIG Home Finance India Ltd. and subsequently with the 1^st opposite party. It is pertinent to note that though amalgamation was made, the complainant is liable and responsible to make payment of the borrowing as per the terms agreed originally. After discharging his liability the complainant demanded to return the title deeds which deposited towards security for the loan, but 1^st opposite party is not willing to return the documents. Opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to remit a further sum of Rs.40,000/- to finalize the loan amount for which the complainant has no liability and a notice issued to the complainant on 16.06.2014 to that effect. It is pertinent to note that, though amalgamation was made, the complainant is liable and responsible to make payment of the borrowing as per the terms agreed originally. The complainant has fully discharged the liability as per the repayment chart originally given to him and that to within the stipulated period. The above acts of the opposite parties are deficiency in their service and that causes mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The complainant issued a registered lawyer notice to the opposite parties No.1 on 28.10.2014, he received notice in due course, till today neither he replied nor return the documents. Hence filed this complaint to get back the title deeds and other documents which deposited by the complainant for availing housing loan and to pay cost and compensation.

3. Notices served to opposite parties and opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the above petition is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case. The petition is not filed as per Iaw. Moreover there is a specific clause in the loan agreement that if a dispute arises between the party the same has to be referred to an arbitrator. For this sole reason, the above petition has to be dismiss in limine. It is true that the complainant availed a loan from the opposite parties. But the allegation made in complaint that the petitioner discharged his payments in due course through 2^nd opposite party, after disturbing his liability demanded to return the title deeds which deposited towards security for the loan, but the 1^st opposite party demanded Rs.40,000/- etc. are all false. It is true that the petitioner availed a loan as per a letter of offer issued by the 1^st opposite party on 25.10.2003. In clause B of the offer letter clearly refers regarding the rate of interest ie in the event of Weitzman Homes Limited, increasing the interest rate prior to the disbursement of the full loan the rate as increased shall be applicable to the loan forthwith from the date of such increase and the borrower shall pay in trust on the principal amount of the loan outstanding at such increased rate. It is further submitted that WHL may from time to time in its sole discretion increases the rate of interest suitably which is binding on the party. This being the fact it is pertinent to note the loan is availed in the year 2003 which is tenable in the year 2013. In the meanwhile the interest ratio has been increased and decreased which is timely informed to the parties.

4. The petitioner has not submitted the details regarding the payment of the loan amount. As per the loan account of the party, he has not paid any amount from 2014 onwards. As per the letter of foreclosure the dues towards the petitioner's loan account is Rs.43,919/-. This fact was informed to the petitioner by the opposite parties. The agreement signed by the parties are binding on them. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that the entire loan amount is repaid. This opposite parties are ready to settle the matter amicably if he applies for the same. There are so many schemes to settle the matter including one time settlement. Avoiding all these facilities the petitioner is simply filing this petition before this Honorable Court only to harass the opposite parties. The fore closure statement dated 18.06.2015 is produced herewith as document No.1 in the list below. The statement of accounts of the loan account is produced herewith as document No.2 in the list below. The entire transaction was held at Calicut hence this Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain these types of complaint. The complainant has filed the above complaint with ill-motive intention to pressurize the opposite parties to settle the matter as he wishes. The above complaint ought to have dismissed in limine with cost and compensatory cost. It is therefore humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint upholding the contentions of the opposite parties and to pass an order directing the petitioner to pay compensatory cost to the opposite parties.

5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 is marked. Ext.A1 is the letter of offer given by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant. Wherein the loan amount mentioned as Rs.2,00,000/- and EMI is shown as Rs.2830 and the installments shown in 120 and also mentioned about the equitable mortgage of the property and post dated cheque also. Ext.A2 is the Notice given by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant to pay Rs.40,820/- as principal outstanding and overdue interest dated 16.06.2014. Ext.A3 is the Lawyer Notice send by the complainant to opposite parties to close the loan account of complainant since he has discharged the entire loan amount and to return back his documents dated 25.10.2014. Ext.A4 is the Postal Receipt for Ext.A3. Ext.A5 is the Acknowledgment card for Ext.A3 and A4. Opposite party has filed proof affidavit but he is not adduced evidence. Hence without his evidence, evidence closed. Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence.

6. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:- In the complaint, complainant stated that he has discharged full liability but not produced any receipt or evidence to that effect but in the cross examination complainant deposed that “I know that in the Ext.A2 Notice company stated that Rs.31,671/- is to be remitted. I understood about the statement of account produced by the opposite party, and also understood that all the entries of my payment entered in the Account Statement. I went to close the loan but I could not remit the amount since no discount is given and if it is remitted by installments the overdue interest will be charged”. In the Ext.A2 notice also opposite party stated that principle outstanding is Rs.31,671/-. Anyway demanding exorbitant over due interest in the agreement period is clear deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties. Hence Point No.1 is found accordingly.

8. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite parties, they are liable to return back the document on payment of the principle due amount of Rs.31,671/- to the opposite party by the complainant and opposite party is liable to pay cost and compensation to the complainant. The Point No.2 is found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to return back all the document which is received at the time of executing the loan agreement on payment of Rs.31,671/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy One) to the opposite party No.1 by the complainant and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Both parties are directed to comply the Order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the defaulting parties are liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum to the other parties for the amount that party is entitled.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22^nd day of September 2015.

Date of Filing:12.05.2015.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Johnson. P. A. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Letter of Offer.

A2. Notice. Dt:16.06.2014.

A3. Lawyer Notice. Dt:25.10.2014.

A4. Postal Receipt.

A5. Acknowledgment Card.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-