BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No. 598 of 2011
Date of instt.22.09.2011
Date of decision: 02.02.2015
Raj Rani wife of Guljari Lal r/o house no.302, Gandhi Nagar, Gali No.7, Karnal.
Vs.
1.The Mudra Co-Op. Housing Building Society Ltd. Hansi Road, Hansi Chowk, through its Secretary/President, Karnal.
2.The Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. Bays 49-50, Sector -2, Panchkula through its Managing Director.
……… Opposite party
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.
Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.
Argued by Sh.Akash Gupta Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Secretary for the OP no.1.
Sh.Bhaja Ram DO for the OP no.2.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that she had raised the loan of Rs.two lakhs from the OP no.1 on 29.10.2003 and the same was released in installment by the OP no.1 and the same has been paid by the complainant in installments. As per conditions of release of installments of loan, the complainant paid share money of Rs.16600/- in installments of Rs.400/-, Rs.6400/- and Rs.4800/-. On repayment of the loan amount, the complainant requested the Ops to refund the share money of Rs.16600/- and to return the original property but in vain. On 16.8.2010 the OP issued auction information of the share of the complainant in which it has been mentioned that a sum of Rs.3, 11,999/- is outstanding against the complainant as on 3.11.2009 and the auction programme was fixed for 16.8.2010 at 12.00Noon. The complainant has alleged that the alleged demand of Rs.3, 11,999/- raised by the Ops is illegal and the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.16600/- and to pay the original documents of the property of the complainant alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint.
2. On notice the Ops appeared. The OP no.1 in its written statement has contended that the complainant had raised the loan amount of Rs.two lakhs and a sum of Rs.1,05,783/- has been repaid and now a sum of Rs.3,27,498/- is outstanding against the complainant. Sh.Baje Ram, Development Officer has filed his written statement in support of the contentions made in the written statement.
The OP No.2 in its written statement has raised the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has got no caused of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint was not maintainable and that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts while filing the present complaint.
On merits, it was contended that only a sum of Rs.1, 03,773/- has been repaid by the complainant and a sum of Rs.2, 89,416/- is yet to be paid by the complainant. It was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP no.2 and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Therefore, after going through the circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that as per ExOP3 a sum of Rs.327498/- is pending against the complainant and as such since entire dues have not been cleared by the complainant and as such the complainant himself is at fault and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops in not issuing the original documents/NOC. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, and to prevent further litigation, it is ordered that the OP no.2 shall return the original documents/NOC to the complainant subject to clearance of the dues out standing against the complainant. The present complaint is disposed off accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced:
02.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
( Member
Argued by Sh.Akash Gupta Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Secretary for the OP no.1.
Sh.Bhaja Ram DO for the OP no.2.
Clerk of the counsel for the complainant has stated that his counsel has already argued the case. Heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been disposed off. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced:
02.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
( Member
