Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

86/2013

V.Shankar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Purasawakkam Permanent Fund Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.Associates

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on:  10.04.2013

                                                                     Order pronounced on:   29.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 29^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.86/2013

 

 

Mr.K.Shankar,

S/o.V.Kannan,

No.Old No.24 New No.4, Kamarajar Street,

Otteri, Chennai – 600 012.

                                                                                 ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. The Purasawakkam Permanent Fund Ltd.,

“Appadurai Buildings”,

No.173, Vellala Street,

Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 084.

 

2. Tmt. K.Indrani,

W/o. Late V.Kannan,

Old No.24 New No.4,

Kamaraj Street, Otteri,

Chennai – 600 012.

 

3. Tmt. Saraswarthi,

D/o. Late V.Kannan,

Old No.24 New No.4,

Kamaraj Street, Otteri,

Chennai – 600 012.

 

 

4.Tmt. Mala,

D/o. Late V.Kannan,

Thiruvallur Road, Molachur,

Sanguvachatram,

Kanchipuram,

 

5. Tmt. Shanthi,

D/o. Late V.Kannan,

Thiruvallur Road, Molachur,

Sanguvachatram, Kanchipuram.

(2 to 5 impleaded as per order dt.04/02/15 in CMP 243/13).

 

...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                   : 15.04.2013

Counsel for Complainant                       : M/s. M.S.Associates

Counsel for 1^st  opposite party                 : M/s. K.Sridhar Associates

 

Counsel for  Opposite Parties 2 to 5        : M/s.P.S.Basker

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant and his father Mr.V.Kannan had mortgaged their property bearing Old Door No: 24, New Door No:4, Kamarajar Street, Otteri,  chennai before the Opposite Party  Bank for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each by two Mortgage deed dated 07.01.1998 & 23.03.1999 registered as Document No:35 of 1998 and 1014 of 1999 respectively for his family expenses and executed various documents. He is regularly repaying the installments and the same was deducted in the complainant loan account bearing No: 6242. While so the father of the complainant was died and subsequently difference of opinion arose between the family members and the mother of the complainant had filed a suit as against the Complainant for permanent injunction restraining the complainant from altering the structure of the building in O.S.No:1154 of 2004 before the Hon’ble City Civil Court, Chennai and against the judgment and decree the complainant had filed Second Appeal and the same is pending till date. The  1^st Opposite Party had sent letter dated 24.09.2012 calling upon the complainant to pay the meager balance amount and to take back the documents deposited with him and  based on the assurances the Complainant herein went to pay the entire dues in respect of the loan account No:TSL A/c.6242 and requested to issue the receipt and return the original documents. However the 1^st Opposite Party had failed to hand over the documents to the complainant as assured and also said that they won’t issue receipt. Therefore the 1^st Opposite Party committed deficiency in service and hence the Complainant is entitled to damages for a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs for the deficiency in service committed by the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant sent legal notice to the 1^st Opposite Party to return the documents. Even after that the document was not returned and hence the complainant filed this Complaint to pay the balance loan amount and  to return the original documents and with compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION FILED  BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

          One Thiru.V.Kannan father of the Complainant  is the absolute owner of premises No.24, Kamaraj Street, Otteri, Chennai-600 012, he having purchased the same under a Deed of Sale dated 11.03.1979 duly Registered as document No: 366/1976 SRO Purasawallkam. Thiru. V.Kannan had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the Purasawallkam Permanent Fund Limited in March 1999 on mortgage of their house property and deposit of title deed. Thiru V.Kannan expired on August 2003 leaving his legal heirs are the Complainant and the Opposite Parties 2 to 5. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the wife of diseased Kannan and the Opposite Parties 3 to 5 is their daughters and the Complainant K.Sankar is their son. The 2^nd Opposite Party issued notice dated 07.07.2010 to the 1^st Opposite Party not to return the title deeds without obtaining the signatures of all the legal heirs. The Complainant has filed O.S.NO: 1554/2004 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai against his mother and his sister seeking permanent injunction and handed over the title deeds. The said suit was dismissed on 29.03.2006 and against the said dismissal the Complainant filed an appeal in AS.NO: 378/2007 and that was also dismissed and after that he filed 2^nd appeal with condone delay petition. The matter has been seized by the Civil Court and the Complainant suppressed such a fact that he has filed this complaint. The complaint has no merits and this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION FILED  BY THE 2^nd to 5^th OPPOSITE PARTIES:

          The property mortgaged with the 1^st Opposite Party purchased by the husband of the 2^nd Opposite Party and he died intestate leaving his wife, son & daughters as his legal heirs. According to Hindu Succession Act, all the above said legal heirs are entitled to 1/5^th share in the mortgage property. As a matter of fact, the 2^nd Opposite Party  filed O.S.NO: 3352/2011 on the file of the learned XI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for partition and allotment of her 1/5^th share in the mortgage property and the same was also decreed as prayed for on 06.12.2013. In the said decree, it was held by the Court that the Complainant Thiru. K.Sankar is entitled to only 1/5^th share in the mortgage property. As per the decree dated 06.12.2013 all the legal heirs of deceased V.Kannan, are entitled to 1/5^th share, in the mortgaged property. The Opposite Parties 2 to 5 submits that when they are all legal heirs in respect of the mortgage property, the Complainant alone cannot demand or claim that the title deeds pertaining to the suit property should be handed over to him. The Complainant filed injunction suit in O.S.No.154/04 on the file of City Civil Court not to deliver the title deeds documents and the said Suit was dismissed and as against which he filed A.S.No.378/07 was also dismissed. The 2^nd Opposite Party collected rent in the mortgaged property and she is also collecting the rent and utilizing the rent for payment of property tax and water and sewage tax etc. The Complainant is entitled 1/5^th share only in the mortgaged properly and he is not entitled for any other relief sought by him and hence the Opposite Parties prays dismiss the Complaint.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

5. POINT NO:1

          It is an admitted fact that one Mr.Kannan is the owner of the property situated at Old Door No.24 New Door No.4 Kamaraj street, Otteri, Chennai and  mortgaged the said property with the Opposite Party/ bank and borrowed two loan of Rs.50,000/- each by executing the mortgage deed dated 07.01.98 and 23.03.99 registered in document No.35/98 (Ex.B1) and 1014/99 (Ex.B2) and the said kannan was died on 01.08.2003 leaving his legal heirs are the 2^nd Opposite Party as his wife, the 3^rd to 5^th Opposite Parties are his daughters and the Complainant is his son.

          6. The Complainant contended that he received Ex.A1 letter dated 24.09.2012 from the 1^st Opposite Party to clear the arrears in respect of the mortgaged property and hence he approached the 1^st Opposite Party to clear the loan and to obtain the original documents and however the 1^st Opposite Party refused to give the documents to him.

          7. The 1^st Opposite Party contended that the Complainant and the Opposite Parties 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of diseased Kannan who had mortgaged the property and the 2^nd Opposite Party also sent notice dated 07.07.2010 to him not to return the title deeds  unless signed by all the  legal heirs for the return of documents and further the Complainant filed Civil Suit restraining the other Opposite Parties also dismissed and further the matter seized by the Civil Court and hence prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          8. The Opposite Parties 2 to 5 contended that they are also having share in the mortgaged the property with the 1^st Opposite Party and the Complainant is having only 1/5^th share in the said property and therefore he is  alone not entitled to receive the original documents and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          9. It is not in dispute that the Complainant and the Opposite Parties are the son and daughters of the deseased V.Kannan and his wife the 2^nd Opposite Party and the said Kannan mortgaged the property with the 1^st Opposite Party. The diseased Kannan has not left any document that who has to clear the loan and to obtain the original document from the 1^st Opposite Party. Therefore the Complainant and the Opposite Parties 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of the diseased   Kannan entitled to clear the loan with the 1^st Opposite Party and to obtain original documents from him. The Complainant alone is not entitled to get original documents from the 1^st Opposite Party. Therefore the prayer sought by the Complainant to direct the 1^st Opposite Party to return original property document to him is not sustainable and therefore the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency towards the Complainant and hence we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

10. POINT NO:2

          Since the 1^st  Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and no relief sought against the Opposite Parties 2 to 5, the Complainant is not entitled for any one of the relief sought by him in the Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 29^th day of September 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.09.2012                   Letter sent by the Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated 11.10.2012                   Notice sent by the Complainant

Ex.A3 dated 18.10.2012                   Reply given by the Opposite Party counsel

Ex.A4 dated 01.12.2012                   RTI Notice sent by the Complainant with AD Card

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Encumbrances Certificate

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1 dated 07.01.1998         The Purasawakum Permanent Fund Ltd

Ex.B2 dated 17.03.1999                   Long Term Special Loan Mortgage Deed

Ex.B3 dated 29.03.2006                   Judgment in O.S.No:1554/04

Ex.B4 dated 07.07.2007                   Letter

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2 TO 5 OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                            …….NIL…….                                                                  

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT