Date of Filing:18.07.2007<br /> Date of Order: 31.12.2007<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2007<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1509 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> T. Lakshman Sa,<br /> S/o Late Sampangi Sa,<br /> R/o No.144, New No.21,<br /> Ward No.41, Byatarayanapura,<br /> M.M. Road, <br /> Bangalore-560 026. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Somavamsha Sahasrarjuna Kshatriya<br /> Co-Operative Society Ltd.,<br /> Represented by its Secretary,<br /> No.43, Gopalakrishna Swamy Temple Street,<br /> Bangalore-53. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. <br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant has availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party on 18/4/2002 by pledging his documents. He has repaid the loan amount. The complainant requested the opposite party to give no objection certificate and requested to return the original documents. The Manager of the society refused to return the original documents on the reason that the complainant has to give an undertaking to the effect that measurement of the property is not 45 X 30 Sq.Ft., and asked the complainant to sign the letter prepared by him. When the complainant repaid the loan amount there was necessity to give such undertaking. It is the duty of society to return the original documents to the complainant immediately after discharge of the loan. The opposite party has committed deficiency of service. Hence, the complainant has prayed that, the opposite party shall direct to return all the original documents and to direct the opposite party to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental shock and for deficiency of service. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party and opposite party appeared through counsel and defense version filed contending that it is true that complainant availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. The opposite party admitted that, the complainant has paid entire loan amount. It is submitted by the opposite party that, the complainant never approached the society for return of the original documents. For this reason known to the complainant he has approached this Hon’ble Forum. There is litigation pending between the complainant and his younger brother namely T.S. Sundarraj in O.S. No.459/2007 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. In that suit, the complainant asked the society to produce original documents before the Civil Court and summons had been served on the opposite party. The opposite party has produced the original documents in O.S. No.459/2007. For all these reasons stated above, the opposite party has requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties are filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:-<br /> Whether there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is admitted case of the parties that, the complainant has availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party by pledging original documents. It is also admitted case of the parties that the complainant has cleared entire loan. It is also admitted case that, the complainant has deposited documents as per the list of documents shown in the letter of the opposite party society dated 13/3/2002. The opposite party has also admitted that, the complainant had deposited original documents at the time of taking loan. Therefore, there is absolutely no dispute between the parties in respect of the deposit of original documents and repayment of loan by the complainant. It is also admitted case of the parties that, a civil suit is pending between the complainant and his brother T.S. Sundaraj in O.S. No.459/2007 before the Civil Court, Bangalore. It is also admitted fact that the complainant had filed an application in the original suit for production of the documents which were in the custody of the Co-operative Society. As per the court summons the opposite party herein had produced all the documents in O.S. No.459/2007. The learned counsel for the complainant admits during the course of argument that all the documents are now before the Civil Court and the learned counsel submits that the complainant will receive the documents from the Civil Court after disposal of the suit. The opposite party society has also no objection whatsoever for giving all the documents to the complainant. The society has no right in law to keep the documents in its custody when the complainant has discharged the entire loan taken by him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the society also submitted that since the documents were produced before the Civil Court the complainant will be at liberty to take all the documents from the Civil Court. Therefore, prayer of the complainant sought in this complaint has been already got by the complainant. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for costs and compensation for the delay in returning the documents. The complainant has discharged the loan on 4/7/2007. The society should have returned all the original documents to the complainant soon after the discharge of the entire loan. The society cannot take any objection or defense that the complainant should execute undertaking etc. The question of executing undertaking for getting back the documents does not arise at all. The society has no right in law to ask the complainant to give undertaking etc., for return the documents. Whatever the documents produced by the complainant at the time of taking loan could have been returned immediately after closer of the loan amount. Therefore, to the extent of this lapse there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party society. The society cannot take lame excuse in not returning the documents to the complainant immediately after closer of the loan amount. The society has no right in law to keep the documents of the complainant in its custody after discharge of the loan. The civil dispute between the brothers in the Civil Court is nothing to do with the present transaction. The society should not have taken any cognizance of the pendency of the suit between the complainant and his brother. When the complainant had deposited the documents with the society and the loan had been discharged by the complainant and thereafter, duty and obligation is on the society to return the original documents to the complainant immediately. But in this case the society has made some delay in returning the original documents. The society has kept quite till getting the summons from the Civil Court. The society no doubt had produced all the documents before the Civil Court in pursuance of the summons, but that will not absolve the society from its negligence in not returning the original documents to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has to be compensated for the delay in returning the documents by the society and we feel on the facts and circumstances, a sum of Rs.1,000/- as damages to the complainant will meet the ends of justice. This damage is only a token damage awarded against the society. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party society is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as damages to the complainant and Rs.500/- as costs of the present proceeding.<br /> <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2007.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />