Haryana

Karnal

CC/288/2015

Seeta Devi W/o Harish Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Haryana State Co-Operative Housing Federation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Jagjit Kumar

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No.288 of 2015

                                                      Date of instt. 23.11.2015

                                                      Date of decision:09.04.2018

 

Sita Devi wife of late Shri Harish Chander, resident of House of House no.43, Sector-13, Extension Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. The Managing Director Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. Bays no.49-52, Sector-02, Panchkula.

2. The Development Officer, Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. Kurukshetra, Kothi no.784, Sector-13, U.E. Kurukshetra.

3. The Secretary, Jyoti Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd., Hous no.1060, Sector-13, U.E. Karnal.

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Secretary, Krishna Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd., House no.152, Sant Nagar, Hansi Chowk, Kaithal Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President    

                Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

               

 

 Present   Shri J.K.Malhotra Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Sandeep Rana Advocate for OPs no.1 and 2.

                   OPs no.3 and 4 exparte.

                  

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had availed a loan facility of Rs.50,000/- for the construction of her house no.43, Sector-13, extension, Urban Estate, Karnal from the National Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. which was later on merged in the Jyoti Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd. Karnal and said Jyoti Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd. Karnal again merged with Krishna Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd. in the year 1999. At the time of availing said loan, the documents/title deed regarding said house were kept by the OPs as collateral security.  The loan was released by the OPs through installment at different times of construction of said house. It has been agreed between the complainant and the OPs that the complainant would repay the loan amount alongwith interest agreed therein by way of installments within maximum period of 20 years. Complainant was regularly depositing the amount of installments and finally has cleared the aforesaid principal amount of loan as well as interest accrued therein and on 28.04.1993 also obtained NOC in respect of said loan account from OP no.3. In August, 2015 the complainant was interest to alienate her aforesaid house and when she met with prospective buyers, then they claim original title deed of property. Complainant then made contact with the officials of HUDA and the concerned clerk of HUDA told to the complainant that the allottee i.e. the complainant took a loan from the society and as per record of HUDA loan is outstanding towards said property. The complainant then show the NOC to the concerned clerk, who then asked the complainant to submit the original allotment letters/possession letter and release of mortgage of property from the society i.e. OP no.3 as well as from the Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. i.e. OP no.1. Thereafter, the complainant approached to the office of OPs no.1 and 2 and demanded back the original documents/title deed but the OPs no.1 and 2 refused to return said original document/title deed of house in favour of the complainant by saying that still the loan amount is outstanding against the complainant. The complainant shown the copy of NOC to the OPs no.1 and 2, which was issued by the OP no.3, but the OPs no.1 and 2 have not bothered the same and told that the original title deed of house will be given by the OPs no.1 and 2 to the complainant when the complainant would clear entire outstanding amount. In this way OP have cheated the complainant and now the OPs are adamant not to return the original title deed of her house. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 21.10.2015 upon the OPs in that regard but to no effect. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the OPs released the loan to the complainant as pr rules of Housing Federation, Ltd. but the complainant failed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest as a sum of Rs.64703/- was due against the complainant on 15.2.1993 alongwith future interest. However, no NOC issued by the bank as alleged. It is well settled law t hat till the repayment of total loan amount alongwith interest, the original document cannot be released and the loan amount is still pending against the complainant. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.3 and 4 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 25.4.2017 and 4.1.2016 respectively.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 29.9.2017.

5.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Chander Bhan ADO Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 20.2.2018.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             There is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts that the complainant had availed a loan facility of Rs.50,000/- for the construction of her house no.43, Sector-13, extension, Urban Estate, Karnal from the National Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. which was later on merged in the Jyoti Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd. Karnal i.e. OP no.3 and OP no.3 again merged in OP no.4 in the year 1999. It is also not disputed that the documents/title deed regarding said house were kept by the OPs as collateral security at the time of availing the loan.

8.             According to the complainant, she had cleared the amount of loan in respect of said loan account from OP no.3. The complainant in August, 2015 was interested to alienate her said house, for which she required the original deed and the complainant contacted the HUDA office, where the complainant was told that as per record loan is outstanding against the said property. Inspite of showing the NOC, the HUDA demanded original allotment letter/possession letter and document of release of mortgage from the society. The complainant approached the OPs no.1 and 2 for the original documents but the OPs no.1 and 2 refused to return the same because the complainant has not paid the entire loan amount and said that loan amount is outstanding against him. The complainant served a legal notice dated 21.10.2015 but the OPs have refused to return the document which is deficiency in service.

9.             On the other hand, the OPs no.1 and 2 contended that the complainant has not come under the definition of consumer, so the complainant is not a consumer. It is further contended that a sum of Rs.64703/- was due against the complainant on 15.02.1993 alongwith future interest and the documents cannot be released unless and until the entire loan amount alongwith interest is cleared. About NOC it is contended that no NOC was issued by the bank, who was competent to issue the NOC. It is also argued by these OPs that the complainant has obtained the alleged NOC in collusion with the employee of OP no.3 i.e. Jyoti Co-operative House Building Society, Ltd. whereas the NOC should have been obtained from OPs no.1 and 2. It is also argued that said employee of OP no.3 has not been impleaded as party knowingly and intentionally. The OPs no.1 and 2 has initiated the legal action against the said employee. It is further contended that the complaint is time barred because the alleged NOC was issued on 28.6.1993 and the present complaint was filed on 23.11.2015 and no doubt this objection has not been taken in the reply but the legal objection can be argued at the time of argument.

10.            The contention of OPs no.1 and 2 that complainant is not a consumer has no force because no such law has been produced by the OPs, vide which it can be said that the complainant is not a consumer.

11.            To prove her case, the complainant produced in her evidence alleged NOC Ex.C-1, photo copies of Jyoti 1^st Personal ledger Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5, photo copy of writing on plain paper Ex.C-6, legal notice, postal receipts & reply to legal notice Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 besides her affidavit. On the other hand, the OPs no.1 and 2 produced in their evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and account statement of the complainant Ex.R-1.

12.            From the account statement Ex.R-1, it is clear that the loan amount of Rs.50000/- was returnable within 20 years in 80 quarterly installments and which were to be completed in the year 2006. It is admitted by the complainant in her complaint in para no.4 that the complainant would repay the loan amount alongwith interest by way of installment within 20 years. It is further clear from Ex.C-4 that the loan amount was disbursed to the complainant in the year 1985 in three installments. The document Ex.C-5 is not readable. The document Ex.C-6 shows the disbursement of loan amount and its repayments which is on a plain paper. Ex.C-6 shows that the loan amount was disbursed in three installments vide cheques to the complainant on 19.01.1985, 19.02.1985 and 28.2.1985 for Rs.15000/-, Rs.20000/- and Rs.15000/- respectively. This document shows repayment of Rs.20,000/- on 21.2.1986 and Rs.30,000/- on 11.06.1986 besides Rs.4500/- as interest. This document Ex.C-6 shows that the loan was taken in the year 1985 and repaid in the year 1986. This document Ex.C-6 is contradictory to the account statement Ex.R-1 of the complainant. The account statement did not show such payments as shown in Ex.C-6. Moreover, the complainant has not mentioned in her complaint that when she had repaid the loan amount or she had paid the same in two installments. If the loan amount was repaid in the year 1986, then why she had taken the NOC on 28.04.1993 i.e. after about 7 years and when she obtained the NOC then why she had not demanded the original documents from the OPs at that time. Moreover, Ex.C-6 did not bear the signature of any authority. All these facts and questions create a doubt regarding the repayment of the loan amount as well as issuance of the NOC. When the complainant alleged that the repayment in two installments, then the complainant was duty bound to produce the receipt on the file but the complainant has not produced the same. Moreover, the photo copies of the ledger book have not been proved legally by examining the concerned person, so the same cannot be read into evidence. Similarly, the photo copy of the alleged NOC has not been proved properly because neither the said employee, who issued the same has been examined nor impleaded as party by name. Therefore, the same cannot be relied upon unless the same is proved legally by leading cogent evidence. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations levelled by her and the complainant also failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs no.1 & 2.

13.            The contention of OPs that the complaint is time barred has force because the alleged NOC has been shown issued on 28.4.1993, whereas the present complaint was filed on 28.11.2015. According to the provisions of section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing the complaint was 2 years. Hence, in our opinion the complaint is time barred.

14.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussions, we found no merits in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed on merits as well as being barred by limitation. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 09.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                     President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                    (Anil Sharma)

                       Member