BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.581/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 11^th November 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency of service and seeking a direction to return all the (20 Nos.) original documents and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused and Rs.50,000/- towards harassment with cost of the proceedings and such other reliefs.
2.     The complainants availed loan for renovating and for additional construction of their property, by mortgaging property by depositing all the relevant original documents.  The opposite party No.1 acknowledged the receipt of documents.  The complainant cleared the entire loan amount on 06.06.2012, and opposite party acknowledge the same by issuing a letter.  Subsequently, demanded for return of all the documents deposited, but the opposite party kept on dodging to return the same.  Despite of several reminders, a legal notice caused on 24.07.2012, calling upon to return the documents, but the opposite party failed to comply.  Another legal notice issued on 06.02.2015, requesting to return the documents.  Opposite party No.1 replied the notice on 23.02.2015, but have not complied the request of the complainant.  Hence, the aggrieved complainant filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party filed its version, denying the allegations as false.  Further, it submits, the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the dispute has to be redressed before the Civil Court only and not before the Consumer Forum.  Further submits the complaint is barred by limitation. 
4.     The opposite party admitted the availment of loan by deposit of original documents, and also the clearance of the entire debt on 06.06.2012.  Opposite party admitted the non-return of all the documents to the complainant.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5.     Both parties lead their evidence by filing affidavit.  The complainant placed relevant documents in support of her claims.  Written arguments filed and counsel for both parties made oral submissions.  Perusing the material on board, matter posted for orders.
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite parties in not returning the original documents, even after clearing the loan amount and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs?
3. What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant availed loan by depositing all necessary original documents, from opposite party and cleared the entire debt on 06.06.2012.  Opposite party failed to return the documents on demand for the same on several occasions. Vide letter dated 05.07.2012, the opposite party informed that, the property documents pledged were temporarily misplaced and it is making efforts to trace the same and sought time for return of the documents.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 24.07.2012, but the opposite party not returned the documents.  As such, another legal notice caused on opposite party, on 06.02.2015 calling upon to return the documents pledged. But the opposite party failed to comply the request.  As such, the opposite party is under the obligation to return the documents, is kept open, till this date, hence, the contention of opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation and the complaint is not a consumer dispute is not acceptable.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
9.   Point No.2:- Admittedly, the complainant availed loan from opposite party depositing documents in respect of their property.  They cleared the entire debt on 06.06.2012 and to that effect, the opposite party acknowledged the same on 06.06.2012.  Thereafter, the complainant demanded for return of all the original documents deposited.  But, the opposite party kept on dodging the issue.  The opposite party vide letter dated 05.07.2012, informed the complainant, that the documents were temporarily misplaced at their end and are making all efforts to trace the same and after tracing the same would be handed over.  The complainant vide legal notice dated 24.07.2012 demanded for return of the documents, but in vain.  Again another notice caused on 06.02.2015, calling upon to return the documents, for which opposite party gave an untenable reply on 23.02.2015.  Thereby, aggrieved complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and sought for the reliefs.
10.    The opposite parties contended that the dispute is not a consumer dispute, as such the complainant is required to seek redressal before the civil court.  Further, contended that, the complainant is filed after the lapse of considerable time as per the provisions of the C.P.Act, 1986, as such, prays the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
11. The opposite party admitted the receipt of the documents and its failure in tracing the same, even after clearance of the loan, since 06.06.2012 till date.  As such, the obligation to return the documents still rest with the opposite party.  So the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable and the opposite party is liable to return the documents to the complainant and also liable to compensate the complainant for the hardship, mental agony caused.  Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.   
12. Point No.3:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally hereby directed to return all the original documents deposited by the complainant, at the time of borrowing loan to the complainant, within 60 days of this order.  In default to comply, the opposite parties are liable to penalty of Rs.100/- per day to the complainant, until compliance.
3. The opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay Rs.10,000/- compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused and Rs.10,000/- towards negligence and deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within 60 days of this order.  In default to comply, the opposite parties shall pay interest at 12% p.a. on the said total amount of Rs.25,000/-, till payment made.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 11^th November 2016)