Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.           Captioned appeal  is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.           The case of the complainant Chandrakanti Patel in nutshell is that she  purchased a Tractor and trailor being financed by opposite party on mortgage of R.O.R. vide Khata No. 22 of village Brahmanipali. The opposite party accepted the request of the complainant and financed Rs. 7,50,000/- on 11.4.2015. The complainant’s husband has been mentioned as guarantor and he also filed the R.O.R. of the mortgaged land. The complainant has cleared the entire loan amount but NOC has not been issued in her favour. The original R.O.R. was not issued to the complainant. By that, she got mental harassment and filed the complaint case.

4.          The opposite party filed written version stating that the complainant has cleared the loan amount and the husband-guarantor got back the R.O.R. and the NOC. Since both are husband and wife, on good faith they have already handed over R.O.R. to the husband of the complainant since the R.O.R. stands in the name of the complainant’s husband. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

5.          After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                 “In view of our forgoing discussion, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs from the opposite party and for the reasons aforesaid and under the facts and circumstances we hold that, the complaint petition merits consideration and accordingly it is allowed on contest against the opposite party directing him to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty Thousand) only towards mental agony with litigation cost of Rs. 3000/- ( Rupees three  thousand) only.  Further we directed the opposite party to provide No Dues Certificate to the complainant and in absence of the original R.O.R. khata No. 22 recorded in the name of Pradeep Kumar Naik of village Brahamanipali already lost or damaged by the bank-opposite party, the certified copy of the said document to be used as original for any other purpose, if so suggest. The opposite party is directed to comply the aforesaid order within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of this order failing which the compensation amount will carry interest @9% per annum as penal interest till payment.”

6.          Learned counsel for the opposite party  submitted that it has already returned the NOC and ROR to the complainant’s husband 28th July, 2015. He also submitted that certified copy of the ROR can be given to the complainant. Learned District Forum ought to have understood all these facts. Since learned District Forum did not accept their version, they have filed the appeal. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.          Considered the submissions, perused the impugned order and the DFR.

8.          It is admitted fact that the complainant herself has obtained loan from the opposite party-bank for Rs. 7,50,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has paid back the entire loan amount to the opposite party. It is also not in dispute that the NOC and ROR were issued to the husband of the complainant. Of course, when the complainant is the loanee and the documents received by the opposite party-bank, they should be returned to the complainant. However, there is a relationship between the husband and his wife the complainant. The opposite party-bank has  delivered the NOC and the ROR in good faith to the husband of the complainant.

9.          In view of the aforesaid discussions when we find that the NOC and ROR has already been issued by the bank to the husband of the complainant but not to complainant, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-bank. However, another copy of the NOC and true copy of the ROR be given to the complainant for her satisfaction.

10.        With these observations, we set aside the impugned order so far payment of compensation and cost.

              The appeal is allowed in part.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.