Haryana

Sonipat

CC/255/2015

Tilak Raj S/o Mool Chand Nanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager The Sonepat Urban Coop Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

MANNU MALIK

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

 

                                    Complaint No.255 of 2015

                                    Instituted on:31.07.2015.

                                    Date of order:03.03.2016

 

 

Tialk Raj Nanda son of Mool Chand Nanda, r/o DB-1027, Sudama Nagar, Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

The Manager, The Sonepat Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., HO New Subzi Mandi, Sonepat.

                                  …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. AK Jain, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he took loan of Rs.5 lacs from respondent on 16.6.2010 as 13 secured loan which was to be repaid in installments of Rs.10000/- against equitable mortgage by depositing four original sale deeds and original map.  The complainant handed over 20 blank cheques duly signed by him to the respondent.  The complainant has already repaid the entire loan amount with interest to the respondent and nothing is due and payable by the complainant.   The respondent has issued no due certificate dated 6.5.2015 and after clearance of the loan amount, the complainant moved application on 28.4.2015 to the respondent to return four original sale deeds of the property lying deposited with them, but the respondent has not returned the same uptil now to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the loan amount was repaid by the complainant to the bank, but the respondent has denied the fact that the complainant has deposited four sale deeds with the respondent bank.  The respondent made his best to resolve the controversy, but the loan file of the complainant is not traceable in the bank.

3.       We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the entire relevant documents available on the case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the entire loan amount has been repaid by the complainant to the respondent, but despite this, the respondent are not returning four original sale deeds to the complainant which was given to the respondent at the time of taking loan.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the loan amount was repaid by the complainant to the bank, but the respondent has denied the fact that the complainant has deposited four sale deeds with the respondent bank.  The respondent made his best to resolve the controversy, but the loan file of the complainant is not traceable in the bank.

         In the present case, one thing is clear that the loan amount which was taken by the complainant has been repaid by him to the respondent and there is no dispute regarding any repayment of the balance loan amount in between both the parties.

         The complainant has pleaded that four original sale deeds were deposited with the respondent at the time of taking loan. To rebut this contention, the respondent in their written statement has submitted that “The respondent made his best to resolve the controversy, but the loan file of the complainant is not traceable in the bank”.

         In the present case, ld. Counsel for the complainant has made a statement on 24.12.2015 that he has received from the respondent four original registry no.7454 dated 4.3.1970, 8132 dated 24.11.2004, 8610 dated 9.12.2004 and 3786 dated 5.2.1975.  Similarly on 25.12.2016 ld. Counsel for the complainant has made a statement that he has received original map from the respondent.

         So, it is clear from the above statements that the respondent has returned the original sale deeds and original map to the complainant during the pendency of the complaint and even after filing of the present complaint.  The complainant has to run from pillar to post for the redressal of his grievances and in our view, all this has happened due to the deficient services rendered by the respondent.  The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.four lacs as compensation, but the said amount, in our view, is on  a very higher side.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Rs.twenty five thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The respondent is further directed to make the compliance of this order within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 03.03.2016