The Managment of Graha Nirmana Sahakara Sangh Ltd. V/S Dr. Sri Raj Gopal Udupa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

01/2008

Dr. Sri Raj Gopal Udupa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managment of Graha Nirmana Sahakara Sangh Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

T. KishanRao

30 Apr 2009

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. 01/2008

Dr. Sri Raj Gopal Udupa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Managment of Graha Nirmana Sahakara Sangh Ltd. The Graha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamith, The Managing Director						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi President:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Sri. Raj Gopal Udupi against the three Respondents- (1) President, Management of Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangah Ltd., Jawaharnagar Raichur, (2) Chief Executive Secretary, Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamith Jawaharnagar Raichur, and (3) Managing Director Karnataka State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., Bangalore. The brief facts of the complaint may be summed up as under:- Complainant is the member of the Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamita, Jawaharnagar Raichur. The Respondents 1 & 2 are the Registered Co-operative Housing Society in the nomenclature as Gruha Nirman Sahakara Sangha Raichur here in after referred as Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Raichur. The Bye-laws of this society are approved under the provisions of KCS Act and Rules 1960. The main function of Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha is to enroll eligible persons residing in the area of operation of the society, collect the share amount from such members and allot House Sites to the members and advance loans for the construction of houses on the plots allotted by the Society. In-addition, the Society has got other business for implementation of the objects for which the Society is registered. Accordingly the complainant had become member subscribe share amount and additional share amount to the society and availed loan of Rs. 60,000/- from the Respondent No-3 through Respondent No- 1 & 2. The Respondent No-3 granted loan of Rs. 60,000/- under Low/Middle Higher Income Group Housing Scheme to the complainant through Respondent No- 1 & 2 vide their order dt. 18-01-85. The copy of sanctioned letter is submitted at Annexure-2. The sanctioned loan was released from 01-12-85. The complainant was regular in repayment of loan on due dates from the very beginning till the end of loan period. The complainant use to remit loan installments regularly through cheques/draft and obtained the official receipts from Respondent No-2. At the commencement of repayment of loan the complainant paid Rs. 819/- vide Receipt No. 4797 dt. 04-02-86 towards interest from 31-01-85 to 05-02-86. The Receipts of which is submitted at Annexure No-4. There afterwards he has repaid the loan installments under the Receipts as detailed in Annexure No-5 in all 120 receipts. The complainant has remitted entire outstanding loan to the account of the Karnataka State co-operative Federation Ltd., Bangalore (Respondent No-3) liquidating the entire loan with interest. The copy of Bank Challan for having remitted Rs. 27,054/- to the Syndicate Bank Bangalore through the S.B. A/c of Respondent No-1 vide Challan No. SB 197 produced at Annexure No-6. On production of the Bank Challan, the Respondent No-2 Secretary of Society has issued No-Due-Certificate on 31-01-98. The copy of said Certificate is produce at Annexure-7. Thus the complainant having fully repaid loan with interest, penal interest, service charges etc., as per the terms and conditions of the Loan Grntee Order, requested the Respondent No-1 to return Title deeds of his house property. In-spite of incessant approaches made to Respondent No-1 the Title deeds and other property documents under Hypothecation with the Gruha Nirmana Sahakar Sangha are not returned till today. The complainant also approached Respondent No-3 personally, more than several occasions but in vain. Having exhausted all his efforts the complainant got issued legal notice calling upon the Respondent to return the documents as the entire loan was repaid in 1997 itself. The complainant before approaching the Forum, had made complaint to the Department of Co-operation and also to the Management by its President Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha about deficiency in service but no action is taken against the Respondents by jurisdictional Department Officer. In addition the complainant got issued a legal Notice U/s. 125 of KCS Act to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society requesting him to enquire the complaint and ensure return of title deeds and other records pertaining to the house of complainant. Since there has been no positive action by the Respondents, hence the complainant has filed the present complaint for deficiency of service by the Respondents. The Respondent No-3 Federation without reconciling accounts, in respect of the complainant regarding the repayments made by him, it has shirked its responsibility and obligatory service to the complainant and throw its responsibility on Respondent No- 1 & 2. The letter received with negative approach of the Respondents by their reluctant in not furnishing information. The Respondent No-3 inspite of repayment of entire loan with interest there on is demanding huge amount and unless that amount is paid, the title deeds may not be returned. The Respondent No-3 Federation has insisted for repaying Rs. 1,64,351/- at the end of 30-09-07 and it has not indicated what is the exact amount due from this complainant. It is surprising that all the loan grantees under Bulk Loan have got returned the Title deeds and even some of them have sold-out their houses at Raichur under financing of the Respondent No-3. The Respondent No-3 has discriminated the complainant and its approach towards the complainant is very harsh causing mental torture and financial loss. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to reconciliation of the account with reference to the repayments made by complainant and for providing the loan extracts and other details and Respondents No- 1 & 2 be directed to give re-conveyances deed from hypothecation of house property belonging to the complainant immediately giving them a cut-off date to comply with the orders and for awarding Rs. Five Lakh towards compensation for sufferings and mental torture agony humiliation and to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for amount held by them, pending reconciliation at the end from December 1997 to till disposal of the complaint and to direct the Respondent No- 3 to close the loan account and to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses. 2. In response to service of notice Respondent No- 1 & 2 appeared through Sri. Basavaraj Sakri Advocate and Respondent No-3 appeared through Sri. Vishwanath Pattanshetty Advocate Respondent No-2 has filed written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-1. Respondent No-3 has filed separate written version. The written statement of Respondent No-2 which has been adopted by Respondent No-1 reads as under: The complaint in the present form is not maintainable since the dispute between the complainant and Respondent is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made there under. The complainant without exhausting all available remedies before the said Authorities has approached this Forum and so it is not maintainable. On going through the complaint, the facts reveal that, the grievance of the complainant is only against Respondent No-3, the Karnataka State Co-operative Housing Federation but not against Respondent No- 1 & 2. The complainant though has paid all the outstanding dues of availed loan to the Respondent No-3, his Title deeds are not returned to him by Respondent N-3 for the reasons best known to it. In this context the Respondent No- 1 & 2 have joined hands with the complainant in approaching & persuading the Respondent NO-3 to deiver the Title deeds to the complainant by writing several letters. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the Respondent No- 1 & 2 have made sincere & honest efforts in securing the Title deeds of the complainant from the Respondent No-3 that itself is a clear indication that Respondent No 1 & 2 are no way responsible for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. It is worth to note here that in a similar set of facts and circumstances of the case, in Complaint No. 52/03, this Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint against the present Respondent No- 1 & 2 holding the present Respondent No-3 in that case, responsible to deliver the Title deeds to the complainant therein The said matter had went up to the Honble State Commission in Appeal No. 317/05 in which the order of this Forum is confirmed with certain modification regarding payment of cost etc., and the present Respondent No-3 was directed to deliver the Title deeds as per the order dt. 22-08-06. The copies of the said decision is produced for perusal, which may be helpful in rendering just decisions in this case. Hence for all these reasons Respondents 1 & 2 have sought for dismissal of the complaint in this case. 3. Respondent No-3 has filed separate written version contending that the complainant is a member of Respondent No- 1 & 2 society duly registered under KCS Act with objects of providing house sites and house construction loan to its members. The complainant has availed a loan of Rs. 60,000/- and has executed mortgage deed dt. 03-05-85. Respondent No- 1 & 2 has assigned the mortgage deed in favour of this Respondent No-3 on 03-05-85 and it is true that the original documents are with this Respondent. The Respondents 1 & 2 society is due to this Respondent No-3 in respect of loan account of complainant. Since this Respondent has not received the amounts in full towards discharge of loan, so the question of discharge of loan and return of documents does not arise. This Respondent is not legally bound to give service to the complainant because this Respondent No-3 has advanced loan through Respondent No-1 & 2 and not directly to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service as claimed, because when loan amount is not discharged the closer of loan account does not arise, as such the complaint is not maintainable. Since this Respondent has not received the amount towards discharge of loan account of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society pertaining to the complainant there is no legal cause for this complaint. The complaint does not come under the provisions of C.P. Act and this Forum has no Jurisdiction to bear this complaint. The complainant is not a Consumer as per C.P. Act. The relationship between the complainant and this Respondent is that of a borrower and financier and any dispute between the parties to the loan transactions cannot be adjudicated by this Forum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in case No. 78/91 reported in Consumer Protection Reporter Page 86. There is no deficiency of service by this Respondent. This Respondent is a Co-operative Societies under the Co-operative Societies Act and as the matter in issue relates to the business of this Respondent; the complainant has to file a dispute before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Act in Karnataka U/s. 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Hence for all these reasons Respondents No-3 has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way examination-in-chief as PW-1. In rebuttal the Respondents 1 & 2 have filed sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-2 by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1. On behalf of Respondent No-3 the sworn affidavit of One Sri. T.V. Narasimhamurthy Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies OOD Managing Director of Karnataka State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., Bangalore has been filed as RW-2. Thereafter the complainant filed in interrogatories to RW-1 and RW-2 similarly Respondent No-3 filed interrogatories to the complainant and RW-1 the same have been replied by the respective parties and after hearing both sides the complainant and Respondent No-3 have cross-examined RW-1. Similarly the Respondent No-3 has examined one Sri. A.I. Yekkundi Manager of Accounts of Respondent No-3 as RW-3 who has been authorized to depose on behalf of Respondent No-3 and this RW-3 has been cross-examined on behalf of the complainant and Respondents 1 & 2. On behalf of the complainant in all (130) documents were got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-130. On behalf of Respondent No- 1 & 2 (13) documents have been got marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-13 and on behalf of Respondent No-3 (3) documents were got marked in the first instance at Ex.R-14 to Ex.R-16 and subsequently during the evidence of RW-3 for Respondent No-3 two more documents were got marked as Ex.R-17 & Ex.R-18. 5. It is significant to note here that on 12-03-09 when this case was at the stage of further arguments, the counsel for the complainant sought time for arguments and filed an application for amendment of relief (Column C) praying the relief Column C against Respondents No- 1 to 3 instead of Respondents No- 1 & 2 as sought earlier by over sight. The said application for amendment was allowed on the No Objection submitted by the LC for Respondent No-3 and accordingly, the amendment was carried out in relief Column C and amended complaint was filed. Thereafter when the case was posted for additional evidence by the parties, the counsel for complainant and counsel for respective Respondents submitted no further evidence and both the counsel submitted that they have no further arguments. 6. Heard the arguments of both sides in addition to written arguments filed by respective counsel for parties. Perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling his account and not returning his title deeds, as alleged. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. Respondent No-3 only and not by Respondent No- 1 & 2. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 8. There is no dispute that the complainant Raj Gopal Udupi being a member of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society had availed House Building Loan of Rs. 60,000/- from Respondent No-3 through Respondent No- 1 & 2 by executing title deeds of his house property. It is the case of the complainant that he has remitted entire outstanding loan to the account of Respondent No-3- Karnataka State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., Bangalore with interest and accordingly Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society have issued No-Due-Certificate on 31-01-98. In-spite of having fully repaid the loan amount along with interest, penal interest, service charges etc., as per the terms & conditions of the loan Grantee Order, and in-spite of incessant approaches made to the Respondents for return of title deeds and other property documents under Hypothecation, the Respondents have not returned the same. Having exhausted all his efforts to get the title deeds from the Respondents he got issued legal notices calling upon them to return the same but in vain. Prior to approaching this Forum, he had made complaint to the Department of Co-operative Society and also to Management by its President of Respondents Society about deficiency in service but no action was taken. In-addition, the complainant got issued legal notice U/s. 125 of KCS Act 1959 to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society requesting him to enquire the complaint and ensure the return of title deeds. Since there was no positive action so the complainant having no alternative efficacious remedy, he has filed the present complaint. 9. The Respondents No- 1 & 2 in Para-5 of their written version have stated that the complainant though has paid all the outstanding dues of loan availed from Respondent No-3 but title deeds are not returned to him by Respondent No-3. In this context these Respondents 1 & 2 have joined the hands with the complainant in approaching and persuading the Respondent NO-3 to deliver the title deeds by writing several letters and thus they have made sincere honest efforts in securing the title deeds from Respondent No-3 this itself a clear indication that they are in no way responsible for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and so there is no deficiency of service by the Respondent No- 1 & 2. So the contents of Para- 5 & 6 of their written version makes it clear that the complainant has repaid entire loan amount with interest thereon and Respondent No- 1 & 2 have made joined efforts with the complainant by making correspondence for return of title deeds from Respondent No-3. 10. As seen above the complainant has field (130) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-130. Ex.P-1 is the copy of Bye-law of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society. Ex.P-2 is Loan Sanction Letter of Respondent No-3. Ex.P-3 is the Loan release letter of Respondent N-3. Ex.P-4 is the Loan repayment receipt in-respect of interest dt. 04-02-1986 bearing Receipt No.4797. Ex.P-5 is the List of Loan repayment Receipts containing (118) Xerox copies of such Receipts. Ex.P-6 is the Syndicate Bank Challan for Rs. 27,054/-. Ex.P-7 is No-Due-Certificate issued by Respondent No-2. Ex.P-8 is the Legal Notice and other communications. Ex.P-9 is the Copy of legal notice issued U/s. 120 KCS Act to the Assistant Registrar Co-operation Society, Raichur. Ex.P-10 is the another copy of notice issued to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society, Raichur. Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 are the original cash Receipts issued by Respondent No- 1 & 2 society towards repayment of loan and interest for the period from 31-01-1986 to 01-12-1997. Ex.P-130 is the No-Due-Certificate dt. 31-01-1998 issued by Respondent No- 1 & 2. At the cost of repetition it is said that Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 which are the original cash Receipts and ExP-4 Xerox Copy of Receipt & Ex.P-5 a list of (118) Receipts along with Xerox copies of (118) cash Receipts are one and the same. Further Ex.P-130 No-Due-Certificate (original) and the Xerox copy of which at Ex.P-7 are one and the same. 11. No-Due-Certificate at Ex.P-7 = Ex.P-130 goes to show that it has been issued by Respondent No-2 Secretary Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha. It states that Sri. R.H. Udupa (complainant) who had taken house building loan from Respondent No-3 Karnataka State Co-operative Society Federation Ltd., Bangalore through Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha, Jawaharnagar Raichur (Respondent No- 1 & 2) on 08-11-1985 has fully repaid the loan amount along with interest upto 01-12-1997 and he is not due any amount towards the said loan. A perusal of cash receipts at Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 shows repayment of loan by monthly installment and interest amount during the period from 31-01-1986 to 01-12-1997. 12. The Respondents 1 & 2 have produced in all (13) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-13. Out of which Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 are the copies of letters by Respondent No- 1 & 2 to Respondent No-3 right from 18-07-05 to 01-09-07. Ex.R-1 letter dt. 18-07-05, Ex.R-2 letter dt. 09-10-05 & Ex.R-3 letter dt. 10-05-06 are the three letters through which Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society has requested to Respondent No-3 for furnishing ledger extract of the loanee who had obtained loan from Respondent No-3 through Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society so as to facilitate to recover the loan amount from the loanee-members. Ex.R-4 is the letter dt. 25-11-07 addressed to Respondent No-3 for furnishing of loan account of (5) persons namely: (1) Sri. S.V. Ramnath, (2) Srinivas Shroof (3) Adavirao Jagirdar (4) R.H. Udupa and (5) C. Narasappa. Ex.R-5 is the letter dt. 04-05-07 addressed by Respondent No-3 to Respondent No-2. This letter a perusal of which shows that they are in receipts of legal notice issued by Sri. I, Kishan Rao dt. 28-03-07 to the effect that his client R.H. Udupa (complainant) who had taken house building loan of Rs. 60,000/- in 1984 has repaid entire loan. But his loan account shows that a sum of Rs. 38,016/- is still due as on 07-05-95. So the Sangha Respondent No-2 is called upon to clear of the loan amount along with interest and penal interest etc., to the Respondent No-3 as per their earlier letter No. 3273 dt. 03-07-95, or else legal action will have to be taken. Ex.R-6 is the letter dt. 12-09-07 issued by Respondent No- 1 & 2 addressed to Respondent No-3. It goes to show that the loanee/member R.H. Udupa who had obtained loan from Respondent No-3 has deposited Rs. 27,000/- through DD No. 100740 dt. 19-04-95 directly to Respondent No-3 for which one Sri. Ramarao Yelburga the then Secretary of Respondent No-2 Sangha has issued a cash receipt and having regard to the repayment of loan made by complainant-R.H. Udupa from 31-01-86 to 19-04-95 the then secretary has issued No-Due-Certificate to him. The loan taken by R.H. Udupa/complainant being in the Khata of Bulk Loan No-I and all the loanees under Bulk Loan No-I Khata have cleared of the loan dues but in your letter dt. 04-05-07 vide Ex.R-5 you have stated that Sri. R.H. Udupa is the only person who is still due to pay Rs. 38.016/60/- Ps. But having regard to No-Due-Certificate issued to complainant/R.H.Udupa by the then Secretary of Respondent No-2 Sangha and in the light of the loan Repayment Receipts and payment of Rs. 27,000/- through DD made by R.H. Udupa, his loan account be closed and the title deeds be returned to R.H. Udupa. Ex.R-7 letter dt. 01-09-07 addressed to Respondent No-3 goes to show that as per the direction of Respondent No-3 Bulk Loan No-I dt. 17-10-06 has been cleared of. Sri. R.H. Udupa (complainant) comes under Bulk Loan No-II and he has repaid the entire loan to the Sangha under cash receipt issued to him and he has also deposited DD directly to Federation (Respondent No-3). Under the circumstances the Respondent No-3 was requested to furnish details of extract of loan account as to exactly who are still due for Rs. 89,037.69/- Ps. as stated in the letter. However Respondent No- 1 & 2 Sangha is not due for Rs. 89,037.69/- Ps. The letter Ex.R-7 was sent under courier service Ex.R-8 is Courier Receipt. Ex.R-9 is the copy of judgement dt. 31-01-05 passed by this Forum in DCFR No. 52/03 which was filed by one Krishna Ashrit against Respondent No- 1 & 2 who are Respondents No- 2 & 3 in the present case, holding that Respondent No-2 shall return all the documents, title deeds which have been deposited with Respondent No-2 while obtaining loan by Krishna Ashrit with global compensation of Rs. 30,000/- along with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Ex.R-10 is the copy of Order in Appeal No. 317/07 preferred by Respondent No-2 in that case (present Respondent No-3) as Appellant against the said Krishna Ashrit along with Secretary Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Jawaharnagar, Raichur (Respondent No-1) in the said complaint. It shows that the said appeal was dismissed directing the appellant/Respondent No-2 to return all the documents which include the title deeds which were deposited by the complainant within two months to the complainant therein and was further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation together with cost of Rs. 5,000/- within two months failing which to pay interest at 6% on the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the date of complaint filed before DF till realization. Ex.R-11 is the Extract of loan account of complainant R.H. Udupa. Ex.R-12 is the cash receipt bearing No. 579 dt. 01-12-97 for Rs. 625/- the original of which is at Ex.P-129 produced by the complainant. Ex.R-13 is the Xerox copy of Syndicate Bank Counter Folio dt. 19-04-95, the original of which is at Ex.P-6 filed by the complainant. 13. The Respondent No-3 has filed (5) documents at Ex.R-14 to Ex.R-18. Ex.R-14 is the copy of closure case report to the complainant loan account of R.H. Udupa. Ex.R-15 is the Xerox copy of Notarized Mortgage Deed executed by R.H. Udupa in favour of Respondents. Ex.R-16 is the True copy of Salada Anavadhi Patra in-respect of Mortgage Deed Document No. 323/85-86 in between Respondent No- 1 & 2 and Respondent No-3. Ex.R-17 is the Authorization Letter executed by Respondent No-3 in favour of Sri. A.I. Yekkundi authorizing him due to the evidence in this case. Ex.R-18 is the letter of Respondent No-3 to Secretary dt. 04-05-07 which has been already discussed at Ex.R-5 filed by Respondent No- 1 & 2 since the Ex.R-5 & Ex.R-18 are one and the same. 14. Admittedly the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 60,000/-, as seen from Ex.P-2 loan sanction letter issued by Respondent No-3 addressed to Respondent No-2 Secretary. In the said letter it was informed that a loan of Rs. 60,000/- sanctioned to the Society for financing Sri. R.H. Udupi the complainant and the rate of interest is fixed at Rs. 13½ % p.a. to the society and the Respondent No-2 should charge interest to the borrower at Rs. 14 ½ % inclusive of premium on the Group Insurance Policy. The Loan is repayable in 180 equated monthly installments as fixed by Respondent No-3. The Society loan grantee has to reimburse the expenses incurred by the Housing Federation. The borrower/applicant has to execute Loan Bond on his own behalf on behalf of his minor children as their guardian. Ex.P-3 is the loan release letter issued by Respondent No-3 to the Respondent No-2 secretary informing the release of loan of Rs. 60,000/-. Interest fixed at Rs. 14 ½ % and monthly (loan) installment is fixed at Rs. 819/- p.m. including principal and interest & General Insurance Premium at 1%. This letter Ex.P-3 further shows a direction to the Respondent No-2 Society that out of monthly installments recovered from the loanee, the Society has to deposit Rs. 778-80/- towards principal along with 13½ interest to the Federation (Respondent No-3) every month. So from this letter Ex.P-3 it is crystal clear that the Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society has to recover the monthly installments from loanee-complainant in this case as per the instructions envisaged in the said letter. 15. Admittedly loan installments were paid to Respondent No- 1 & 2 who have issued cash Receipts for the same under Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 referred to above. The complainant while filing the original receipts under Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 has produced a list showing the receipt No., date, and the payment of amount. The cash payments at Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12, Ex.P-14, Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-26 & Ex.P-28 to Ex.P-37, Ex.P-39 to Ex.P-120 & Ex.P-122 to Ex.P-128 shows repayment of loan installment @ of Rs. 778.80/- ps towards principal and Rs. 40.20/- ps under the head society margin all totaling to Rs. 819/- per installment. Ex.P-13 shows payment loan installment at Rs. 2336.40/- ps. for the months from March 1986 to May 1986 and Rs. 120.60/- Ps towards society margin, all totaling to Rs. 2,457/-. Ex.P-15 shows payment of Rs. 600/-. Ex.P-27 shows payment of Rs. 778.80/- Ps. towards loan installment for June-1987 Rs. 40.20/- Ps. towards society margin and Rs. 51.18/- Ps. towards penal interest upto 01-09-87 all totaling to Rs. 870.18/- Ps. Ex.P-38 shows payment of Rs. 1557.60/- Ps towards interest for the month of May-1988 & June-1988 and Rs. 80.40/- Ps towards society margin all totaling to Rs. 1,638/-. Ex.P-121 shows payment of Rs. 27,000/- towards housing loan installment through DD No. 100740 in favour of Respondent No-3 Federation Bangalore. Ex.P-129 shows payment of Rs. 625/- through cheque towards balance of the loan amount. The Gross total of all the receipts at Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 comes to Rs. 1,27,174/-. 16. As discussed above through letter dt. 04-05-07 at Ex.R-5 = Ex.R-18 the Respondent No-3 informed to Respondent No-2 that a sum of Rs. 38,016.60/- ps. is still due from complainant/R.H. Udupa as on 07-05-95 and Respondent No-2 was called upon to deposit the said due amount. By way of reply letter dt. 12-09-07 at Ex.R-6, the Respondent No-2 Secretary has stated that complainant/R.H. Udupa has repaid the entire loan amount with interest and the then Secretary has issued No-Due-Certificate to him on the basis of loan repayment receipts and DD for Rs. 27,000/- directly deposited with Respondent No-3 vide Ex.P-6 = Ex.R-13. From this it shows that Respondent No- 1 & 2 are definite that complainant has repaid entire loan amount with interest. Of course the Respondent No-3 vide their letter dt. 04-05-07 at Ex.R-5 had informed Respondent No-2 that the complainant/R.H. Udupa is still due to sum of Rs. 38,016.60/- Ps. as on 07-05-1995 and Respondent No-2 Secretary was called upon to deposit the said amount. But by way of reply letter dt. 12-09-07 vide Ex.R-6 the Respondent No-2 Secretary has reiterated that the complainant has repaid entire loan amount with interest and No Due Certificate has been issued to him on the basis of loan repayment receipts and DD for Rs. 27,000/- sent directly to Respondent No-3. For this reply letter of Respondent No-2, the Respondent No-3 Federation has not taken any further course regarding the alleged outstanding dues by the complainant. No scrap of paper has been produced by the Respondent No-3 as to what action they had taken on the reply letter given by Respondent No-2 stating that the complainant has paid entire loan amount and No Due Certificate has been issued to him vide Ex.P-130. No explanation is coming forth from Respondent No-3 in that regard. 17. As discussed above the loan sanction letter Ex.P-2 and loan release letter Ex.P-3 which have been issued by Respondent No-3 to the Respondent No-2 Society, amply goes to show that the loan of Rs. 60,000/- has been sanctioned to the Respondent No-2 Society for financing to the complainant- R.H. Udupa and Respondent No-2 was entrusted to recover the loan amount with fixed rate of interest for monthly installment fixed by Respondent No-3. This means complainant was to repay the amount to Respondent No- 1 & 2 only and not to Respondent No-3. Admittedly the complainant has made repayment of loan to Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society with interest under Cash Receipts at Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 issued by the Respondent No-2 and on the basis of the same and No Due Certificate has also been issued under Ex.P-130. If this is so we are at a loss to know as to how the complainant is still due to the tune of Rs. 38,016.60/- Ps as contended by the Respondent No-3 Federation especially when the complainant has not repaid the amount to Respondent No-3 directly and loan amount was to be recovered by Respondent No- 1 & 2 only. When Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society are definite and specific that complainant has repaid entire loan amount with interest and have issued No Due Certificate to him and have also made correspondence to Respondent No-3 for release of title deeds to the complainant, then the contention of the Respondent No-3 that the complainant is still due does not stand to reason. However the complainant is fair enough in-asking the relief vide relief column A to direct the Respondents to reconcile loan accounts with reference to the repayments made by him since the beginning till the closure of the loan. In-spite of such relief sought by the complainant, it appears that the Respondent No-3 have not shown their gracious attitude to reconcile his account with reference to repayments made under Cash Receipts at Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129. The Respondent No-3 was expected to reconcile the loan account of complainant before filing the written statement in this case. Instead of that Respondent No-3 have challenged the claim of the complainant by filing written statement. It is not the case of the Respondent No-3 in the written statement that they have attended the first relief of the complainant by verifying the repayments made under Cash Receipts and that still the complainant is due to the outstanding dues. Admittedly the complainant being a loanee has every right to ask for verifying/reconcile his loan account with reference to the repayments made by him under Cash Receipts. This lacuna on the part of the Respondent No-3 itself amounts to deficiency in service especially when the Respondent No- 1 & 2 have made it clear that complainant has repaid entire loan amount with interest and have made correspondence with Respondent No-3 for release of the title deeds to the complainant. 18. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 in their written version have stated that in a similar Case/complaint No. 52/03, this Forum has held that Respondent No-2 (in that case) who is Respondent No-3 in present case, is responsible to deliver the title deeds to the complainant therein. The Honble State Commission has confirmed the order of this Forum in Appeal No. 317/05 filed by the Respondent No-2 in that case (present Respondent No-3). They have filed certified copy of the judgement of this Forum and the Order of the Honble State Commission at Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-10. The Respondent No-3 in their written version have not whispered that they have preferred any Appeal to the National Commission against the order of the Honble State Commission in Appeal No. 317/05. This means the order of this Forum having been confirmed by the Honble State Commission, has become final, meaning thereby the present case which is similar to that of earlier case No. 52/03 is maintainable. So the contention of the Respondent No-3 that the complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, does not stand to reason. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by Respondent No-3 only and not by Respondent No- 1 & 2. Therefore Point No-1 is answered accordingly. POINT NO.2:- 19. The complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent No-3 to reconcile the accounts with reference to the repayments made by him since beginning to the closure of the loan and to direct to furnish extract of loan accounts and further direction to give re-conveyance deed from Hypothecation of his house property and to award compensation of Rs. Five Lakh for suffering with mental torture, agony and humiliation coupled with financial loss and further direction for granting ad-interim order to pay Rs. One Lakh as temporary relief and to award interest at 18% for the amount held by them pending reconciliation. 20. From the relief Column A to J as referred to above the relief column A is main relief seeking direction to reconcile loan account and to award compensation of Rs. Five Lakh for the mental agony, suffering by the attitude of the Respondent No-3. Admittedly the last repayment receipts at Ex.P-129 is dt. 01-12-97 and No Due Certificate at Ex.P-130 is dt. 31-01-98. This means from 1998 onwards the claim of the complainant for getting his title deeds has become a burning topic without giving any heed to his request by the Respondent No-3 for more than (10) years and that after exhausting remedies as stated by the complainant, he has filed the present complaint in January-2008. So it naturally goes to show the mental agony/suffering of the complainant in getting back his title deeds. Having regard to all these factors, we find it is a fit case to direct the Respondent No-3 to reconcile the loan account of the complainant with reference to the Cash Receipts Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 issued by Respondent No-1 & 2 and to pay a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. However the relief of the complainant for release of the title deeds and for giving re-conveyance deed by the Respondent No- 1 to 3 being depending upon the first relief of reconciliation of the account so the complainant is not entitled for the said relief. However we find it fit to issue direction to Respondent No-3 to release the title deeds and to execute the re-conveyance deed in case there are no outstanding dues payable by the complainant. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent No-3 is directed to reconcile the loan account with reference to the repayments made by the complainant under Cash Receipts issued by Respondent No-2 and thereafter they have to furnish extract of the same to the complainant. After reconcile of accounts, if no dues are outstanding against the complainant, then Respondent No-3 have to release the title deeds and to give re-conveyance deed from Hypothecation of the house property. Respondent No-3 has to pay a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. The Respondent No-3 has to comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint against Respondent No- 1 & 2 is dismissed. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-04-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi President:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Sri. Raj Gopal Udupi against the three Respondents- (1) President, Management of Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangah Ltd., Jawaharnagar Raichur, (2) Chief Executive Secretary, Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamith Jawaharnagar Raichur, and (3) Managing Director Karnataka State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., Bangalore. The brief facts of the complaint may be summed up as under:- Complainant is the member of the Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamita, Jawaharnagar Raichur. The Respondents 1 & 2 are the Registered Co-operative Housing Society in the nomenclature as Gruha Nirman Sahakara Sangha Raichur here in after referred as Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Raichur. The Bye-laws of this society are approved under the provisions of KCS Act and Rules 1960. The main function of Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha is to enroll eligible persons residing in the area of operation of the society, collect the share amount from such members and allot House Sites to the members and advance loans for the construction of houses on the plots allotted by the Society. In-addition, the Society has got other business for implementation of the objects for which the Society is registered. Accordingly the complainant had become member subscribe share amount and additional share amount to the society and availed loan of Rs. 60,000/- from the Respondent No-3 through Respondent No- 1 & 2. The Respondent No-3 granted loan of Rs. 60,000/- under Low/Middle Higher Income Group Housing Scheme to the complainant through Respondent No- 1 & 2 vide their order dt. 18-01-85. The copy of sanctioned letter is submitted at Annexure-2. The sanctioned loan was released from 01-12-85. The complainant was regular in repayment of loan on due dates from the very beginning till the end of loan period. The complainant use to remit loan installments regularly through cheques/draft and obtained the official receipts from Respondent No-2. At the commencement of repayment of loan the complainant paid Rs. 819/- vide Receipt No. 4797 dt. 04-02-86 towards interest from 31-01-85 to 05-02-86. The Receipts of which is submitted at Annexure No-4. There afterwards he has repaid the loan installments under the Receipts as detailed in Annexure No-5 in all 120 receipts. The complainant has remitted entire outstanding loan to the account of the Karnataka State co-operative Federation Ltd., Bangalore (Respondent No-3) liquidating the entire loan with interest. The copy of Bank Challan for having remitted Rs. 27,054/- to the Syndicate Bank Bangalore through the S.B. A/c of Respondent No-1 vide Challan No. SB 197 produced at Annexure No-6. On production of the Bank Challan, the Respondent No-2 Secretary of Society has issued No-Due-Certificate on 31-01-98. The copy of said Certificate is produce at Annexure-7. Thus the complainant having fully repaid loan with interest, penal interest, service charges etc., as per the terms and conditions of the Loan Grntee Order, requested the Respondent No-1 to return Title deeds of his house property. In-spite of incessant approaches made to Respondent No-1 the Title deeds and other property documents under Hypothecation with the Gruha Nirmana Sahakar Sangha are not returned till today. The complainant also approached Respondent No-3 personally, more than several occasions but in vain. Having exhausted all his efforts the complainant got issued legal notice calling upon the Respondent to return the documents as the entire loan was repaid in 1997 itself. The complainant before approaching the Forum, had made complaint to the Department of Co-operation and also to the Management by its President Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha about deficiency in service but no action is taken against the Respondents by jurisdictional Department Officer. In addition the complainant got issued a legal Notice U/s. 125 of KCS Act to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society requesting him to enquire the complaint and ensure return of title deeds and other records pertaining to the house of complainant. Since there has been no positive action by the Respondents, hence the complainant has filed the present complaint for deficiency of service by the Respondents. The Respondent No-3 Federation without reconciling accounts, in respect of the complainant regarding the repayments made by him, it has shirked its responsibility and obligatory service to the complainant and throw its responsibility on Respondent No- 1 & 2. The letter received with negative approach of the Respondents by their reluctant in not furnishing information. The Respondent No-3 inspite of repayment of entire loan with interest there on is demanding huge amount and unless that amount is paid, the title deeds may not be returned. The Respondent No-3 Federation has insisted for repaying Rs. 1,64,351/- at the end of 30-09-07 and it has not indicated what is the exact amount due from this complainant. It is surprising that all the loan grantees under Bulk Loan have got returned the Title deeds and even some of them have sold-out their houses at Raichur under financing of the Respondent No-3. The Respondent No-3 has discriminated the complainant and its approach towards the complainant is very harsh causing mental torture and financial loss. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to reconciliation of the account with reference to the repayments made by complainant and for providing the loan extracts and other details and Respondents No- 1 & 2 be directed to give re-conveyances deed from hypothecation of house property belonging to the complainant immediately giving them a cut-off date to comply with the orders and for awarding Rs. Five Lakh towards compensation for sufferings and mental torture agony humiliation and to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for amount held by them, pending reconciliation at the end from December 1997 to till disposal of the complaint and to direct the Respondent No- 3 to close the loan account and to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses. 2. In response to service of notice Respondent No- 1 & 2 appeared through Sri. Basavaraj Sakri Advocate and Respondent No-3 appeared through Sri. Vishwanath Pattanshetty Advocate Respondent No-2 has filed written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-1. Respondent No-3 has filed separate written version. The written statement of Respondent No-2 which has been adopted by Respondent No-1 reads as under: The complaint in the present form is not maintainable since the dispute between the complainant and Respondent is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made there under. The complainant without exhausting all available remedies before the said Authorities has approached this Forum and so it is not maintainable. On going through the complaint, the facts reveal that, the grievance of the complainant is only against Respondent No-3, the Karnataka State Co-operative Housing Federation but not against Respondent No- 1 & 2. The complainant though has paid all the outstanding dues of availed loan to the Respondent No-3, his Title deeds are not returned to him by Respondent N-3 for the reasons best known to it. In this context the Respondent No- 1 & 2 have joined hands with the complainant in approaching & persuading the Respondent NO-3 to deiver the Title deeds to the complainant by writing several letters. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the Respondent No- 1 & 2 have made sincere & honest efforts in securing the Title deeds of the complainant from the Respondent No-3 that itself is a clear indication that Respondent No 1 & 2 are no way responsible for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. It is worth to note here that in a similar set of facts and circumstances of the case, in Complaint No. 52/03, this Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint against the present Respondent No- 1 & 2 holding the present Respondent No-3 in that case, responsible to deliver the Title deeds to the complainant therein The said matter had went up to the Honble State Commission in Appeal No. 317/05 in which the order of this Forum is confirmed with certain modification regarding payment of cost etc., and the present Respondent No-3 was directed to deliver the Title deeds as per the order dt. 22-08-06. The copies of the said decision is produced for perusal, which may be helpful in rendering just decisions in this case. Hence for all these reasons Respondents 1 & 2 have sought for dismissal of the complaint in this case. 3. Respondent No-3 has filed separate written version contending that the complainant is a member of Respondent No- 1 & 2 society duly registered under KCS Act with objects of providing house sites and house construction loan to its members. The complainant has availed a loan of Rs. 60,000/- and has executed mortgage deed dt. 03-05-85. Respondent No- 1 & 2 has assigned the mortgage deed in favour of this Respondent No-3 on 03-05-85 and it is true that the original documents are with this Respondent. The Respondents 1 & 2 society is due to this Respondent No-3 in respect of loan account of complainant. Since this Respondent has not received the amounts in full towards discharge of loan, so the question of discharge of loan and return of documents does not arise. This Respondent is not legally bound to give service to the complainant because this Respondent No-3 has advanced loan through Respondent No-1 & 2 and not directly to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service as claimed, because when loan amount is not discharged the closer of loan account does not arise, as such the complaint is not maintainable. Since this Respondent has not received the amount towards discharge of loan account of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society pertaining to the complainant there is no legal cause for this complaint. The complaint does not come under the provisions of C.P. Act and this Forum has no Jurisdiction to bear this complaint. The complainant is not a Consumer as per C.P. Act. The relationship between the complainant and this Respondent is that of a borrower and financier and any dispute between the parties to the loan transactions cannot be adjudicated by this Forum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in case No. 78/91 reported in Consumer Protection Reporter Page 86. There is no deficiency of service by this Respondent. This Respondent is a Co-operative Societies under the Co-operative Societies Act and as the matter in issue relates to the business of this Respondent; the complainant has to file a dispute before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Act in Karnataka U/s. 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Hence for all these reasons Respondents No-3 has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way examination-in-chief as PW-1. In rebuttal the Respondents 1 & 2 have filed sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-2 by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1. On behalf of Respondent No-3 the sworn affidavit of One Sri. T.V. Narasimhamurthy Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies OOD Managing Director of Karnataka State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., Bangalore has been filed as RW-2. Thereafter the complainant filed in interrogatories to RW-1 and RW-2 similarly Respondent No-3 filed interrogatories to the complainant and RW-1 the same have been replied by the respective parties and after hearing both sides the complainant and Respondent No-3 have cross-examined RW-1. Similarly the Respondent No-3 has examined one Sri. A.I. Yekkundi Manager of Accounts of Respondent No-3 as RW-3 who has been authorized to depose on behalf of Respondent No-3 and this RW-3 has been cross-examined on behalf of the complainant and Respondents 1 & 2. On behalf of the complainant in all (130) documents were got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-130. On behalf of Respondent No- 1 & 2 (13) documents have been got marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-13 and on behalf of Respondent No-3 (3) documents were got marked in the first instance at Ex.R-14 to Ex.R-16 and subsequently during the evidence of RW-3 for Respondent No-3 two more documents were got marked as Ex.R-17 & Ex.R-18. 5. It is significant to note here that on 12-03-09 when this case was at the stage of further arguments, the counsel for the complainant sought time for arguments and filed an application for amendment of relief (Column C) praying the relief Column C against Respondents No- 1 to 3 instead of Respondents No- 1 & 2 as sought earlier by over sight. The said application for amendment was allowed on the No Objection submitted by the LC for Respondent No-3 and accordingly, the amendment was carried out in relief Column C and amended complaint was filed. Thereafter when the case was posted for additional evidence by the parties, the counsel for complainant and counsel for respective Respondents submitted no further evidence and both the counsel submitted that they have no further arguments. 6. Heard the arguments of both sides in addition to written arguments filed by respective counsel for parties. Perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling his account and not returning his title deeds, as alleged. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. Respondent No-3 only and not by Respondent No- 1 & 2. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 8. There is no dispute that the complainant Raj Gopal Udupi being a member of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society had availed House Building Loan of Rs. 60,000/- from Respondent No-3 through Respondent No- 1 & 2 by executing title deeds of his house property. It is the case of the complainant that he has remitted entire outstanding loan to the account of Respondent No-3- Karnataka State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., Bangalore with interest and accordingly Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society have issued No-Due-Certificate on 31-01-98. In-spite of having fully repaid the loan amount along with interest, penal interest, service charges etc., as per the terms & conditions of the loan Grantee Order, and in-spite of incessant approaches made to the Respondents for return of title deeds and other property documents under Hypothecation, the Respondents have not returned the same. Having exhausted all his efforts to get the title deeds from the Respondents he got issued legal notices calling upon them to return the same but in vain. Prior to approaching this Forum, he had made complaint to the Department of Co-operative Society and also to Management by its President of Respondents Society about deficiency in service but no action was taken. In-addition, the complainant got issued legal notice U/s. 125 of KCS Act 1959 to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society requesting him to enquire the complaint and ensure the return of title deeds. Since there was no positive action so the complainant having no alternative efficacious remedy, he has filed the present complaint. 9. The Respondents No- 1 & 2 in Para-5 of their written version have stated that the complainant though has paid all the outstanding dues of loan availed from Respondent No-3 but title deeds are not returned to him by Respondent No-3. In this context these Respondents 1 & 2 have joined the hands with the complainant in approaching and persuading the Respondent NO-3 to deliver the title deeds by writing several letters and thus they have made sincere honest efforts in securing the title deeds from Respondent No-3 this itself a clear indication that they are in no way responsible for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and so there is no deficiency of service by the Respondent No- 1 & 2. So the contents of Para- 5 & 6 of their written version makes it clear that the complainant has repaid entire loan amount with interest thereon and Respondent No- 1 & 2 have made joined efforts with the complainant by making correspondence for return of title deeds from Respondent No-3. 10. As seen above the complainant has field (130) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-130. Ex.P-1 is the copy of Bye-law of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society. Ex.P-2 is Loan Sanction Letter of Respondent No-3. Ex.P-3 is the Loan release letter of Respondent N-3. Ex.P-4 is the Loan repayment receipt in-respect of interest dt. 04-02-1986 bearing Receipt No.4797. Ex.P-5 is the List of Loan repayment Receipts containing (118) Xerox copies of such Receipts. Ex.P-6 is the Syndicate Bank Challan for Rs. 27,054/-. Ex.P-7 is No-Due-Certificate issued by Respondent No-2. Ex.P-8 is the Legal Notice and other communications. Ex.P-9 is the Copy of legal notice issued U/s. 120 KCS Act to the Assistant Registrar Co-operation Society, Raichur. Ex.P-10 is the another copy of notice issued to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society, Raichur. Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 are the original cash Receipts issued by Respondent No- 1 & 2 society towards repayment of loan and interest for the period from 31-01-1986 to 01-12-1997. Ex.P-130 is the No-Due-Certificate dt. 31-01-1998 issued by Respondent No- 1 & 2. At the cost of repetition it is said that Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 which are the original cash Receipts and ExP-4 Xerox Copy of Receipt & Ex.P-5 a list of (118) Receipts along with Xerox copies of (118) cash Receipts are one and the same. Further Ex.P-130 No-Due-Certificate (original) and the Xerox copy of which at Ex.P-7 are one and the same. 11. No-Due-Certificate at Ex.P-7 = Ex.P-130 goes to show that it has been issued by Respondent No-2 Secretary Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha. It states that Sri. R.H. Udupa (complainant) who had taken house building loan from Respondent No-3 Karnataka State Co-operative Society Federation Ltd., Bangalore through Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha, Jawaharnagar Raichur (Respondent No- 1 & 2) on 08-11-1985 has fully repaid the loan amount along with interest upto 01-12-1997 and he is not due any amount towards the said loan. A perusal of cash receipts at Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 shows repayment of loan by monthly installment and interest amount during the period from 31-01-1986 to 01-12-1997. 12. The Respondents 1 & 2 have produced in all (13) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-13. Out of which Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 are the copies of letters by Respondent No- 1 & 2 to Respondent No-3 right from 18-07-05 to 01-09-07. Ex.R-1 letter dt. 18-07-05, Ex.R-2 letter dt. 09-10-05 & Ex.R-3 letter dt. 10-05-06 are the three letters through which Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society has requested to Respondent No-3 for furnishing ledger extract of the loanee who had obtained loan from Respondent No-3 through Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society so as to facilitate to recover the loan amount from the loanee-members. Ex.R-4 is the letter dt. 25-11-07 addressed to Respondent No-3 for furnishing of loan account of (5) persons namely: (1) Sri. S.V. Ramnath, (2) Srinivas Shroof (3) Adavirao Jagirdar (4) R.H. Udupa and (5) C. Narasappa. Ex.R-5 is the letter dt. 04-05-07 addressed by Respondent No-3 to Respondent No-2. This letter a perusal of which shows that they are in receipts of legal notice issued by Sri. I, Kishan Rao dt. 28-03-07 to the effect that his client R.H. Udupa (complainant) who had taken house building loan of Rs. 60,000/- in 1984 has repaid entire loan. But his loan account shows that a sum of Rs. 38,016/- is still due as on 07-05-95. So the Sangha Respondent No-2 is called upon to clear of the loan amount along with interest and penal interest etc., to the Respondent No-3 as per their earlier letter No. 3273 dt. 03-07-95, or else legal action will have to be taken. Ex.R-6 is the letter dt. 12-09-07 issued by Respondent No- 1 & 2 addressed to Respondent No-3. It goes to show that the loanee/member R.H. Udupa who had obtained loan from Respondent No-3 has deposited Rs. 27,000/- through DD No. 100740 dt. 19-04-95 directly to Respondent No-3 for which one Sri. Ramarao Yelburga the then Secretary of Respondent No-2 Sangha has issued a cash receipt and having regard to the repayment of loan made by complainant-R.H. Udupa from 31-01-86 to 19-04-95 the then secretary has issued No-Due-Certificate to him. The loan taken by R.H. Udupa/complainant being in the Khata of Bulk Loan No-I and all the loanees under Bulk Loan No-I Khata have cleared of the loan dues but in your letter dt. 04-05-07 vide Ex.R-5 you have stated that Sri. R.H. Udupa is the only person who is still due to pay Rs. 38.016/60/- Ps. But having regard to No-Due-Certificate issued to complainant/R.H.Udupa by the then Secretary of Respondent No-2 Sangha and in the light of the loan Repayment Receipts and payment of Rs. 27,000/- through DD made by R.H. Udupa, his loan account be closed and the title deeds be returned to R.H. Udupa. Ex.R-7 letter dt. 01-09-07 addressed to Respondent No-3 goes to show that as per the direction of Respondent No-3 Bulk Loan No-I dt. 17-10-06 has been cleared of. Sri. R.H. Udupa (complainant) comes under Bulk Loan No-II and he has repaid the entire loan to the Sangha under cash receipt issued to him and he has also deposited DD directly to Federation (Respondent No-3). Under the circumstances the Respondent No-3 was requested to furnish details of extract of loan account as to exactly who are still due for Rs. 89,037.69/- Ps. as stated in the letter. However Respondent No- 1 & 2 Sangha is not due for Rs. 89,037.69/- Ps. The letter Ex.R-7 was sent under courier service Ex.R-8 is Courier Receipt. Ex.R-9 is the copy of judgement dt. 31-01-05 passed by this Forum in DCFR No. 52/03 which was filed by one Krishna Ashrit against Respondent No- 1 & 2 who are Respondents No- 2 & 3 in the present case, holding that Respondent No-2 shall return all the documents, title deeds which have been deposited with Respondent No-2 while obtaining loan by Krishna Ashrit with global compensation of Rs. 30,000/- along with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Ex.R-10 is the copy of Order in Appeal No. 317/07 preferred by Respondent No-2 in that case (present Respondent No-3) as Appellant against the said Krishna Ashrit along with Secretary Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Jawaharnagar, Raichur (Respondent No-1) in the said complaint. It shows that the said appeal was dismissed directing the appellant/Respondent No-2 to return all the documents which include the title deeds which were deposited by the complainant within two months to the complainant therein and was further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation together with cost of Rs. 5,000/- within two months failing which to pay interest at 6% on the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the date of complaint filed before DF till realization. Ex.R-11 is the Extract of loan account of complainant R.H. Udupa. Ex.R-12 is the cash receipt bearing No. 579 dt. 01-12-97 for Rs. 625/- the original of which is at Ex.P-129 produced by the complainant. Ex.R-13 is the Xerox copy of Syndicate Bank Counter Folio dt. 19-04-95, the original of which is at Ex.P-6 filed by the complainant. 13. The Respondent No-3 has filed (5) documents at Ex.R-14 to Ex.R-18. Ex.R-14 is the copy of closure case report to the complainant loan account of R.H. Udupa. Ex.R-15 is the Xerox copy of Notarized Mortgage Deed executed by R.H. Udupa in favour of Respondents. Ex.R-16 is the True copy of Salada Anavadhi Patra in-respect of Mortgage Deed Document No. 323/85-86 in between Respondent No- 1 & 2 and Respondent No-3. Ex.R-17 is the Authorization Letter executed by Respondent No-3 in favour of Sri. A.I. Yekkundi authorizing him due to the evidence in this case. Ex.R-18 is the letter of Respondent No-3 to Secretary dt. 04-05-07 which has been already discussed at Ex.R-5 filed by Respondent No- 1 & 2 since the Ex.R-5 & Ex.R-18 are one and the same. 14. Admittedly the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 60,000/-, as seen from Ex.P-2 loan sanction letter issued by Respondent No-3 addressed to Respondent No-2 Secretary. In the said letter it was informed that a loan of Rs. 60,000/- sanctioned to the Society for financing Sri. R.H. Udupi the complainant and the rate of interest is fixed at Rs. 13½ % p.a. to the society and the Respondent No-2 should charge interest to the borrower at Rs. 14 ½ % inclusive of premium on the Group Insurance Policy. The Loan is repayable in 180 equated monthly installments as fixed by Respondent No-3. The Society loan grantee has to reimburse the expenses incurred by the Housing Federation. The borrower/applicant has to execute Loan Bond on his own behalf on behalf of his minor children as their guardian. Ex.P-3 is the loan release letter issued by Respondent No-3 to the Respondent No-2 secretary informing the release of loan of Rs. 60,000/-. Interest fixed at Rs. 14 ½ % and monthly (loan) installment is fixed at Rs. 819/- p.m. including principal and interest & General Insurance Premium at 1%. This letter Ex.P-3 further shows a direction to the Respondent No-2 Society that out of monthly installments recovered from the loanee, the Society has to deposit Rs. 778-80/- towards principal along with 13½ interest to the Federation (Respondent No-3) every month. So from this letter Ex.P-3 it is crystal clear that the Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society has to recover the monthly installments from loanee-complainant in this case as per the instructions envisaged in the said letter. 15. Admittedly loan installments were paid to Respondent No- 1 & 2 who have issued cash Receipts for the same under Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 referred to above. The complainant while filing the original receipts under Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 has produced a list showing the receipt No., date, and the payment of amount. The cash payments at Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12, Ex.P-14, Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-26 & Ex.P-28 to Ex.P-37, Ex.P-39 to Ex.P-120 & Ex.P-122 to Ex.P-128 shows repayment of loan installment @ of Rs. 778.80/- ps towards principal and Rs. 40.20/- ps under the head society margin all totaling to Rs. 819/- per installment. Ex.P-13 shows payment loan installment at Rs. 2336.40/- ps. for the months from March 1986 to May 1986 and Rs. 120.60/- Ps towards society margin, all totaling to Rs. 2,457/-. Ex.P-15 shows payment of Rs. 600/-. Ex.P-27 shows payment of Rs. 778.80/- Ps. towards loan installment for June-1987 Rs. 40.20/- Ps. towards society margin and Rs. 51.18/- Ps. towards penal interest upto 01-09-87 all totaling to Rs. 870.18/- Ps. Ex.P-38 shows payment of Rs. 1557.60/- Ps towards interest for the month of May-1988 & June-1988 and Rs. 80.40/- Ps towards society margin all totaling to Rs. 1,638/-. Ex.P-121 shows payment of Rs. 27,000/- towards housing loan installment through DD No. 100740 in favour of Respondent No-3 Federation Bangalore. Ex.P-129 shows payment of Rs. 625/- through cheque towards balance of the loan amount. The Gross total of all the receipts at Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 comes to Rs. 1,27,174/-. 16. As discussed above through letter dt. 04-05-07 at Ex.R-5 = Ex.R-18 the Respondent No-3 informed to Respondent No-2 that a sum of Rs. 38,016.60/- ps. is still due from complainant/R.H. Udupa as on 07-05-95 and Respondent No-2 was called upon to deposit the said due amount. By way of reply letter dt. 12-09-07 at Ex.R-6, the Respondent No-2 Secretary has stated that complainant/R.H. Udupa has repaid the entire loan amount with interest and the then Secretary has issued No-Due-Certificate to him on the basis of loan repayment receipts and DD for Rs. 27,000/- directly deposited with Respondent No-3 vide Ex.P-6 = Ex.R-13. From this it shows that Respondent No- 1 & 2 are definite that complainant has repaid entire loan amount with interest. Of course the Respondent No-3 vide their letter dt. 04-05-07 at Ex.R-5 had informed Respondent No-2 that the complainant/R.H. Udupa is still due to sum of Rs. 38,016.60/- Ps. as on 07-05-1995 and Respondent No-2 Secretary was called upon to deposit the said amount. But by way of reply letter dt. 12-09-07 vide Ex.R-6 the Respondent No-2 Secretary has reiterated that the complainant has repaid entire loan amount with interest and No Due Certificate has been issued to him on the basis of loan repayment receipts and DD for Rs. 27,000/- sent directly to Respondent No-3. For this reply letter of Respondent No-2, the Respondent No-3 Federation has not taken any further course regarding the alleged outstanding dues by the complainant. No scrap of paper has been produced by the Respondent No-3 as to what action they had taken on the reply letter given by Respondent No-2 stating that the complainant has paid entire loan amount and No Due Certificate has been issued to him vide Ex.P-130. No explanation is coming forth from Respondent No-3 in that regard. 17. As discussed above the loan sanction letter Ex.P-2 and loan release letter Ex.P-3 which have been issued by Respondent No-3 to the Respondent No-2 Society, amply goes to show that the loan of Rs. 60,000/- has been sanctioned to the Respondent No-2 Society for financing to the complainant- R.H. Udupa and Respondent No-2 was entrusted to recover the loan amount with fixed rate of interest for monthly installment fixed by Respondent No-3. This means complainant was to repay the amount to Respondent No- 1 & 2 only and not to Respondent No-3. Admittedly the complainant has made repayment of loan to Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society with interest under Cash Receipts at Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 issued by the Respondent No-2 and on the basis of the same and No Due Certificate has also been issued under Ex.P-130. If this is so we are at a loss to know as to how the complainant is still due to the tune of Rs. 38,016.60/- Ps as contended by the Respondent No-3 Federation especially when the complainant has not repaid the amount to Respondent No-3 directly and loan amount was to be recovered by Respondent No- 1 & 2 only. When Respondent No- 1 & 2 Society are definite and specific that complainant has repaid entire loan amount with interest and have issued No Due Certificate to him and have also made correspondence to Respondent No-3 for release of title deeds to the complainant, then the contention of the Respondent No-3 that the complainant is still due does not stand to reason. However the complainant is fair enough in-asking the relief vide relief column A to direct the Respondents to reconcile loan accounts with reference to the repayments made by him since the beginning till the closure of the loan. In-spite of such relief sought by the complainant, it appears that the Respondent No-3 have not shown their gracious attitude to reconcile his account with reference to repayments made under Cash Receipts at Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129. The Respondent No-3 was expected to reconcile the loan account of complainant before filing the written statement in this case. Instead of that Respondent No-3 have challenged the claim of the complainant by filing written statement. It is not the case of the Respondent No-3 in the written statement that they have attended the first relief of the complainant by verifying the repayments made under Cash Receipts and that still the complainant is due to the outstanding dues. Admittedly the complainant being a loanee has every right to ask for verifying/reconcile his loan account with reference to the repayments made by him under Cash Receipts. This lacuna on the part of the Respondent No-3 itself amounts to deficiency in service especially when the Respondent No- 1 & 2 have made it clear that complainant has repaid entire loan amount with interest and have made correspondence with Respondent No-3 for release of the title deeds to the complainant. 18. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 in their written version have stated that in a similar Case/complaint No. 52/03, this Forum has held that Respondent No-2 (in that case) who is Respondent No-3 in present case, is responsible to deliver the title deeds to the complainant therein. The Honble State Commission has confirmed the order of this Forum in Appeal No. 317/05 filed by the Respondent No-2 in that case (present Respondent No-3). They have filed certified copy of the judgement of this Forum and the Order of the Honble State Commission at Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-10. The Respondent No-3 in their written version have not whispered that they have preferred any Appeal to the National Commission against the order of the Honble State Commission in Appeal No. 317/05. This means the order of this Forum having been confirmed by the Honble State Commission, has become final, meaning thereby the present case which is similar to that of earlier case No. 52/03 is maintainable. So the contention of the Respondent No-3 that the complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, does not stand to reason. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by Respondent No-3 only and not by Respondent No- 1 & 2. Therefore Point No-1 is answered accordingly. POINT NO.2:- 19. The complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent No-3 to reconcile the accounts with reference to the repayments made by him since beginning to the closure of the loan and to direct to furnish extract of loan accounts and further direction to give re-conveyance deed from Hypothecation of his house property and to award compensation of Rs. Five Lakh for suffering with mental torture, agony and humiliation coupled with financial loss and further direction for granting ad-interim order to pay Rs. One Lakh as temporary relief and to award interest at 18% for the amount held by them pending reconciliation. 20. From the relief Column A to J as referred to above the relief column A is main relief seeking direction to reconcile loan account and to award compensation of Rs. Five Lakh for the mental agony, suffering by the attitude of the Respondent No-3. Admittedly the last repayment receipts at Ex.P-129 is dt. 01-12-97 and No Due Certificate at Ex.P-130 is dt. 31-01-98. This means from 1998 onwards the claim of the complainant for getting his title deeds has become a burning topic without giving any heed to his request by the Respondent No-3 for more than (10) years and that after exhausting remedies as stated by the complainant, he has filed the present complaint in January-2008. So it naturally goes to show the mental agony/suffering of the complainant in getting back his title deeds. Having regard to all these factors, we find it is a fit case to direct the Respondent No-3 to reconcile the loan account of the complainant with reference to the Cash Receipts Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-129 issued by Respondent No-1 & 2 and to pay a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. However the relief of the complainant for release of the title deeds and for giving re-conveyance deed by the Respondent No- 1 to 3 being depending upon the first relief of reconciliation of the account so the complainant is not entitled for the said relief. However we find it fit to issue direction to Respondent No-3 to release the title deeds and to execute the re-conveyance deed in case there are no outstanding dues payable by the complainant. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent No-3 is directed to reconcile the loan account with reference to the repayments made by the complainant under Cash Receipts issued by Respondent No-2 and thereafter they have to furnish extract of the same to the complainant. After reconcile of accounts, if no dues are outstanding against the complainant, then Respondent No-3 have to release the title deeds and to give re-conveyance deed from Hypothecation of the house property. Respondent No-3 has to pay a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. The Respondent No-3 has to comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint against Respondent No- 1 & 2 is dismissed. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-04-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.