This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 11-04-11 in the presence of Sri S. Satyanarayana, advocate for complainant and of              Sri K. Raja Rao, advocate for 1^st opposite party and of Sri S.A. Khadar, advocate for 2^nd opposite party and 3^rd opposite party remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to return the original registered documents and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and for costs.

2. In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant obtained a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- from the               1^st opposite party on 13-10-99 and it was spread over for a period of 20 years @ Rs.6,250/- pm.   The complainant as on 07-03-07 paid a sum of Rs.3,13,066/- and thus discharged the loan.  The 1st opposite party issued a letter to the complainant on 07-03-07 addressing a copy to 2^nd opposite party stating that the complainant paid the entire loan amount.  But the 1^st opposite party failed to return the documents even though loan was discharged.   The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to return the documents.   But 2^nd opposite party on 22-12-07 gave a reply stating that the complainant has to pay Rs.1,10,253/- as on 31-12-07. The                          2^nd opposite party failed to appear before the District Legal Services Authority to settle the claim of the complainant.  Non-returning of documents caused mental agony to the complainant and which amounted to deficiency of service. 

3.     The 3^rd opposite party remained exparte.  

4.  The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is hereunder:   

            The complainant is a member of the 1^st opposite party and obtained Rs.1,25,000/- as loan for construction of house from the opposite parties 1 and 2 which has to be repaid together with interest in 20 yearly installments.   The complainant has to pay Rs.6,300/- towards principle as on 31-03-09 and interest thereon to the                    1^st opposite party and Rs.1,01,130/- towards principle together with interest to the 2^nd opposite party as on 31-03-09 as per agreement.   The documents and original mortgage deed along with share capital will remain with the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party shall receive payments of the borrowers and keep 1% interest margin with the society for its maintenance and forward the remaining amount to the 2^nd opposite party. The Ex-Business Manager, Ex-President and Ex-Managing Committee of the 1^st opposite party misappropriated about Rs.20 lacks of society funds and caused loss to the society.  The 3^rd opposite party ordered for statutory inspection under Section 52 of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and the inspecting authority submitted his report stating that Ex-Management and                 Ex-Business Manager of the 1^st opposite party misappropriated huge funds of the society.  The case is pending hearing U/S 60 of the said Act for issue of surcharge.   Meanwhile the Ex-President and another of the 1^st opposite party filed WP.No.10614 of 2007 and got an interim order not to proceed with the inspection report.  Hence, surcharge proceedings are pending with the 3^rd opposite party.  Under those circumstances,  the opposite parties 1 and 2 are in helpless condition in returning the documents to the complainant.   When the complainant was still due in a sum of Rs.6,300/- towards principle how can the person in charge of the 1^st opposite party can give a letter stating that the complainant paid all the dues.  This Forum has no jurisdiction.     

5.      The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in brief is hereunder:   

        The complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1,43,224/- as on                  15-02-10 as per records.   The property of loanee is the security for the loan sanctioned to the society by its creditors and AP House Fed has to recover the due amount and repay it to LIC of India.   If the society Management is certain that the complainant had repaid the entire loan together with interest, it is the responsibility of the                   1^st opposite party to see that the original documents are released from the AP House Fed.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.      

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-4 on behalf of complainant were marked.   No documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

        1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?

        2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

        3. To what relief?

6.     POINTS 1&2:-   The complainant taking loan of Rs.1,25,000/- under an equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds from the                   1^st opposite party is not in dispute.   The contention of the complainant is that she paid the entire amount, while the contention of the opposite parties is contra. 

7.     To corroborate his contention the complainant relied on Ex.A-2  dated 07/10-03-07 wherein it was mentioned that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,58,866/-.   Ex.A-1 is the copy of pass book wherein the amount covered by Ex.A-2 was noted.  In the last page of Ex.A-1 the following was mentioned,

8.     Ex.A-1 clearly revealed that the complainant was due in a sum of Rs.6,300/- as on 07-03-07 towards principal.  Therefore the contention of the complainant that she paid the entire loan amount is falsified by her own document (Ex.A-1).

9.     The complainant is in no way concerned with the internal disputes of the opposite parties 1 and 2 as rightly contended by her.   The complainant is rightly entitled to get her documents returned when once the loan is discharged.  The affidavit of the complainant was silent about the finality of the proceedings covered by WP.No.10614 of 2007.  During the course of enquiry the complainant through her advocate expressed her willingness to deposit the due amount of Rs.6,300/- to the 1^st opposite party.   The same was corroborated by the entries in Ex.A-1 as discussed supra.    As the complainant did not discharge the loan on the date of filing of the complaint it can be said as premature.   The payment, if any, during the pendency of the complaint did not cure the defect.  Under those circumstances, the complaint is not maintainable in our considered opinion and opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service of service and is liable to be dismissed.   As the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.   In view of afore mentioned discussions, these points are answered in favour of the opposite parties.  

10.   POINT No.3:-   In view of the above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 25th day of April, 2011.

Sd/-XXX                                            Sd/-XXX                             Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                                         MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

    DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:         NIL

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT