FA.No.779/2011 against C.C.No.321/2010 District Forum-II, Hyderabad.

Between

Smt.Sarala keshi Reddy

W/o.Dr.B.Venumohan Reddy

Hindu, aged 47 years, Occ:Medical

Practitioner, R/o.H.No.8-2-269/407,

Indiranagar, Road No.2, Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad. Rep. by her GPA

Holder Sajjid Rabbani S/o.Gulam

Rabbani, Muslim, aged about 49 years,

Occ:Business, R/o.HIG, F-4, Housing

Board Colony, Mukkramjahi Road,

Hyderabad.                                                                     ..Appellant/

                                                                                      Complainant 

                   And

LIC Housing Finance Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager (Operations)

No.305, IIIrd floor, Maitrivanam

Hyderabad.                                                                               Respondent/

                                                                                                Opp.party

Counsel for the Appellant                      :  Mr.N.Ravikanth Acharya

Counsel for the Respondent       :  M/s S.Siva Shankar

          QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

AND

SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Order (Per SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, Hon’ble Member)

                                                                        ***

          This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful  complainant as against orders dated 25-8-2011 in C.C.321/2010 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad.

          For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the said complaint are referred to hereunder.

          The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

          The complainant is the absolute owner and possessor of the flat bearing No.202 in second floor, Municipal No.1-1-148 situated at S.P.Road, Secunderabad.  She approached the opposite party for sanction of loan  and that opposite party had sanctioned the loan for which she executed mortgage by depositing title deeds as security for discharge of the loan.  On account of some financial difficulties, the loan was not repaid, thereby the opposite party filed a false and frivolous suit bearing No.O.S.No.176/1996 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge’s court at Secunderabad against the complainant for recovery of the loan amount.  The said suit was decreed by judgement dated 27-9-2001 by the said court.  Thereafter the opposite party had approached the complainant for one time settlement and in pursuance of it, opposite party agreed to settle the loan account for Rs.18,00,000/- towards full and final settlement.  In pursuance of the said settlement, the complainant had paid Rs.17,00,000/- by way of pay order bearing No.307102  and balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by another pay order bearing No.307110 on 27-2-2008.   Inspite of paying the entire loan amount, the opposite party did not release the title deeds deposited with the opposite party.  Hence a legal notice dated 9-11-2009 was issued calling upon the opposite party to release all the original documents but no reply was given to it nor the said documents were returned.  Hence the complaint for deficiency in service to direct the opposite party to return the original sale deed/title deed and all other link documents deposited with it, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical harassment, Rs.10,000/- towards costs f complaint and Rs.25,000/- towards advocate fee.

          Opposite party filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint and disputing the claim. 

The brief facts of written version are as under: 

A preliminary decree was passed in O.S.No.176/1996 by the civil court and after such a preliminary decree, the officials of the opposite party tried to locate the complainant and her husband in the house premises but they were not found and GPA holder of the complainant, Mr.Sajid Rabbani was residing in the said house, therefore, a notice was pasted on the house premises and then the said GPA holder filed a suit in O.S.No.501/2007 on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Secunderabad making opposite party as second defendant and in the said suit it was stated that the complainant had entered into a lease agreement with the said GPA holder for 30 years in 1999 though the house property of the complainant was mortgaged in favour of the opposite party in the year 1996 and that after payment of Rs.18,00,000/-, opposite party has requested the complainant to see that the suit filed by the said GPA holder is withdrawn  and the documents sought to be released will be done so only after taking them from the court.  So far the complainant did not produce withdrawal order in OS.501/2007 and surprisingly the present complaint is filed through GPA holder and therefore GPA holder is not entitled to seek return of the original documents.  The opposite party is not having any objection to return the original documents such as sale deed and other link document to Smt.Sarala Keshi Reddy, the borrower and that she has to sign in the register and also produce withdrawal order in O.S.No.501/2007 but the GPA holder cannot claim that he is the rightful person to take the documents in view of filing of suit in OS 501/2007 against the complainant herein and the O.P.  The said GPA holder is not having any locus standi to file the consumer complaint since he initiated a case against the complainant and also the opposite party as there is a conflict of interest.  Opposite party did not render any deficient service as alleged and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

          Both sides filed evidence affidavits reiterating their respective stands aforesaid.  Exs.A1 to A10 and B1 to B3 were marked on their behalf respectively. 

          Having heard both sides, considering the material on record and written arguments, the District Forum vide impugned orders dismissed the complaint without costs further observing that the complainant, Smt.Sarala Kesi Reddy is at liberty to visit the office of the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of order and take all original title deeds deposited with the opposite party by signing in the necessary register and pass a receipt acknowledging receipt of the documents. 

          Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the complaint through the very same GPA holder and mainly contended that inspite of receiving Rs.18,00,000/- in full and final satisfaction in respect of the loan account of the complainant, deliberately opposite party did not return the documents, though before filing the complaint, letters were addressed to it for return of the documents and that the District Forum totally erred and came to wrong conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus prayed to set aside the order and allow the complaint as prayed for?

          Heard both sides with reference to their respective contentions. 

Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable or it requires any modification?

There is no dispute that the complainant, viz. Smt.Sarala K.C.Reddy, wife of Dr. B.Venumohan Reddy, obtained loan from the opposite party and that after decreeing suit in O.S.No.176/1996 on the file of III Sr.Civil Judge at Secunderabad on 27-9-2001, in full and final settlement, she paid Rs.18,00,000/- and that the documents deposited by the said complainant with the opposite party offering as security for discharging the said loan are still with the opposite party.  There are no circumstances to come to a conclusion that the said documents were deposited by the complainant through the said GPA holder.  There is no dependable evidence from the said GPA that still GPA in his favour is continuing.  When according to him he filed OS 501/2007 on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Secunderabad making the complainant and O.P. as defendants 1 and 2, it has to be inferred that there is conflict of interest between the said complainant and her GPA holder.  In such circumstances, it is not desirable to direct the O.P. to return the said original documents deposited by the complainant to the GPA holder.  As rightly contended by the O.P. after receiving back the original documents, the borrower has to sign in the concerned registers acknowledging receipt of the said documents and signature of GPA would not be sufficient in the said context.  In the circumstances, we are also convinced to hold that the GPA holder has no locus standi to seek return of the original documents from the opposite party and we see no reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum.  Assigning satisfactory reasons, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and observed that the complainant is at liberty to take back the documents from the Opposite party by subscribing her signature in the necessary register and pass a receipt. 

In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.  There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-MEMBER.

                                                                                      Sd/-MEMBERJM                                                                                                          17-9-2012