Complainant (Respondent No.1 herein) filed a complaint before the District Forum against ICICI Home Finance (opposite party No.1 before the District Forum) and Manipal Housing Finance Syndicate (the petitioner herein and opposite party No.2 before the District Forum).

          Case of Respondent No.1 was that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakh from the petitioner on 9.5.2001.  The said amount was repayable in 120 equated monthly instalments. The agreed rate of interest is 12.5% p.a.  It was agreed between the parties that if Respondent No.1 pays the amount prematurely, then petitioner would not be entitled to claim any closure charges.  Respondent No.1 paid more than Rs.4 lakh to the petitioner by March 2003.  ICICI Home Finance/opposite party No.2 took over assets and liabilities of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.2003.  The said transfer of assets and liabilities of the petitioner to opposite party No.1 was not in the knowledge of Respondent No.1.  As Respondent No.1 was not aware of the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the petitioner in favour of OP-1, he paid a sum of Rs.39,000/- to the petitioner, i.e., interest up to September 2003 towards the amount borrowed by him.  Subsequently, when Respondent No.1 came to know about the transfer of assets and liabilities of the petitioner to opposite party No.1/ICICI Home Finance, he approached opposite party No.1 and enquired about the outstanding amount.  Opposite party No.1 intimated him that a sum of Rs.1,54,234/- is still due against him.  Respondent No.1 paid the outstanding amount to opposite party No.1 on 26.11.2003, which was in full and final discharge of his liability. According to Respondent No.1, opposite party No.1 as well as the petitioner failed to refund the sum of Rs.39,000/- paid by him to the petitioner and return the documents of title deposited by him as security, which may have been transferred by it to opposite party No.1.

Aggrieved by this, Respondent No.1 filed complaint before the District Forum against the petitioner and ICICI Home Finance.

District Forum, vide its order dated 9.2.2005 dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum in the following terms :

1.    If OP-1 is in possession of title deeds and documents deposited by the complainant with OP-2 at the time of borrowing the loan, the OP-1 is directed to return the said title deeds and documents to the complainant within three months from today.

2.    In the event if OP-2 is in possession of the said title deeds and documents and has not handed over the same to OP-1, OP-2 is directed to return the said title deeds and the documents to the complainants within three months from today.

3.    OP-2 is directed to pay Rs.39.00/- to the complainant with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization.

4.    OP-1 is also at liberty to institute separate proceedings as against the complainant if it is of the view that the complainant is still due in a sum of Rs.67,903/- if it is s advised before the appropriate Forum or Court.

5.   OPs 1 & 2 jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the costs of the proceedings.

It is not disputed before us that the petitioner did not contest the complaint filed by Respondent No.1.  In spite of service, it did not put in appearance and file the written statement contesting that it had not received the sum of Rs.39,000/- from Respondent No.1.  Taking the averments made in the complaint to be correct as the same had not been denied or rebutted, the State Commission concluded that petitioner had received the sum of Rs.39,000/- from the respondent, which the petitioner was not entitled to receive after transferring the assets and liabilities of the company in favour of ICICI Home Finance.

We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  There is a clear averment in the complaint that Respondent No.1 had paid the sum of Rs.39,000/-.  Since there was no denial or rebuttal to the same, State Commission was justified in taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct and holding the petitioner liable to refund the amount received by it, which he was not entitled to receive.  It is a basis principle of law that a point, which is not denied or rebutted, can be taken to be correct and admitted.  Dismissed.