BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT

MYSURU.

Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1198/2016

Complaint filed on 25.04.2016

Date of Judgement.27.11.2017

PRESENT                      :         1. Shri Ramachandra  M.S.,  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                   PRESIDENT

2. Shri  Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B., 

                                         MEMBER

Complainant/s       :       1. Smt. Charitra Mahaveer,

                                                W/o Late Mahaveer,

                                                Aged about 43 years,

                                                2. Master Siddhanth,

                                                S/o Late Mahaveer,

Aged about 15 years,

Since minor represented by his

Natural Guardian Mother

Smt. Charitra Mahaveer,

Both residing at # 766, 4/6^th Main

E and F Block, Ramakrishnanagar,

Mysore.

(Sri. J.M. Aiyanna., Advocate)

V/s

Opponent        /s             :       LIC Housing Finance Ltd,

                                                Govardhana Hotel Complex,

                                                Sri Harsha Road, Mysore

                                                Represented by its Area

                                                Manager,    

(Sri. K.P.Harisha., Advocate)

          SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,

           PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

The complainant filed the complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking for relief of return of documents  prayed for other relief.

2. The brief facts of the complainant that the Late Mahaveer is the husband of first omplainant and father of second complainant during the life time of late Mahaveer, he had borrowed Housing loan from the opposite party LIC Housing Finance Ltd., vide loan account bearing No. 27004348. At that Juncture the husband of first complainant Sri. Mahaveer had deposited title deeds with respect to the property bearing no.766 situated at 4/6^th main E and F block, Ramakrishna nagar, Mysore in favour of the opposite party.

3. The complainants submits at the time of clearance of the above said loan amount by the said Sri Mahaveer, he intended to secure housing oan for the purchase construction of the property bearing no 593, B block, Vijayanagar, 3^rd stage, Mysore though he loan account bearing no 27004348 of the opposite party was cleared by the husband of 1^st complainant, the opposite party insisted upon to retain the titled deed of the property bearing No.593 B block Vijayanagar 3^rd stage, Mysore along with the title deed of the property bearing No. 766, situated at 4/9 the main E and
F  block Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore, Hence the Husband of the first complainant availed housing loan from the opposite party LIC Housing Finance ltd., for the purchase of the property bearing no. 593 , B block, Vijayanagar 3^rd stage , Mysore by depositing title deeds of the above said property bearing no.766, situated at 4/6 the main E and F block, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore and property bearing no.593, B Block, Vijayanagar, 3^rd stage, Mysore, vide loan account no.411300000130 of the opposite party.

4. The complainants submits, during the release of 3^rd instalment of the above said loan amount availed vide loan account no. 411300000130, the husband of the 1^st complainant died on 27.11.2011 leaving behind the complainants as his only surviving legal heirs, as on the date of demise of Sri . Mahaveer the outstanding due with respect to the loan account no. 411300000130 was s sum of Rs. 4,50,940/- which was repaid to the opposite party by 1^st complainant vide cheque bearing no.316334 dated 25.05.2012 drawn on Canara Bank , Kuvempunagar Branch, Mysore, issued in favour of oppsotie party. Thereafter the opposite party has released only the Original title deed/ documents with respect to the property bearing no 593, B block Vijayanagar 3^rd stage, Mysore, but the opposite party has not released the title deed/documents with respect to the property bearing no.766 situated at 4/6^th main, E and F Block , Ramakrishna Nagar , Mysore, In spite of repeated demands made by the complainants, the opposite party went on postponing to return the original title deed/documents with respect to property bearing no.766, situated at 4/6^th main E and F block, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore citing one or other reason on 10.09.2012 the 1^st complainant has issued a letter to the opposite party asking for return of the documents in respect of the property bearing No. 766, situated at 4/6^th main E and F block Ramkrishna Nagar, Mysore, the said letter was received by the opposite party but remained silent without other to comply with the request of the 1^st complainant.

5. The complainants submits that, thereafter the complainants have issued legal notice dated 24.042014 demanding for the return of the original documents with respect to the property bearing no.766 situated at 4/6h main E and F block, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore, The said legal notice was served on the opposite party on 26.04.2014. In spite of receipt of the legal notice, the opposite party did not return the said title deed/documents to the  complainants nor even issued  any reply.

6. The complainants submit that the first complainant is a widow and the second complainant is a minor, taking undue advantage of the same the opposite party is making them to round the office of the opposite party without complying the lawful demands of the complainants, which caused great mental harassment to the complainants. The act of the opposite party clearly amounts to indulging in unfair trade practice apart from resulting in deficiency of service. Hence without any alternative the complainants are constrained to prefer the present complaint.

7. Notice to opposite party duly served represented by counsel and filed version.

8. The complainant  and opposite party filed chief examination affidavit and documents in support of contention written arguments filed, oral arguments heard, reserved for orders.

9. Heard arguments.

10. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. What order?

11. Our answer to the above points is as follows;

1. Point No.1: In the affirmative .
2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

12 . Point No.1:-   That the 1^st complainant is the wife late Mahaveer and 2^nd complainant is their son late Mahaveer during his life time he had borrowed Housing loan from opposite party finance and deposited title deeds with respect to the property no.766, situated at 416 main, E and F Block, R.K.Nagar, Mysore, if favour of the opposite party.

13. Further the complainant at the time of clearance of the said loan amount he availed another housing loan from opposite party bank for which the opposite party insisted to retain title deed of property no. 593, ‘B’ Block Vijayanagar , Mysore, along with title deed of above said property and complaint has deposited the same and borrowed second housing  loan from opposite party.

14. Further during the subsistence of said loan account no 41130000130 the husband of 1^st complainant Mahaveer died on 27.11.2011. and subsequently the 1^st complainant repaid the outstanding balance loan amount of Rs. 4,50,940/- through cheque dated 25.05.2012 the further it is contended by the complainant the opposite party bank has only released title deed of property no 593, ‘B’ block Vijaynagar,, Mysore, but the opposite party has not released the title deed with respect to the property no.766, situated 4/6 main E and F Block, R.K.Nagar Mysore, In spite of repeated demanded opposite party did not return the same to complainant.

15.  Further the opposite party has filed version and denied the entire allegation of complaint, and taken up specific  contention of limitation point and agreed that since the complaint is barred by limitation , it is liable to be dismissed on that ground.

16. From the above events and facts and also upon the pledings documents relied by both parties that it is evident that admitted by the loan availed by late Mahaveer was cleared long back and the second housing loan availed was  also cleared on 25.05.2012 by the complaint.

17. Here the 1^st cause of action to file complaint is on when the 1^st housing loan was cleared by late Mahaveer nowhere in the complaint it is not pleaded  when the 1^st loan was cleared this act of complaint is suspicion and evident that complaint is trying to hide some thing related to the 1^st housing loan. The second cause of action to file complaint starts on 25.05.2012 when the second loan was cleared by complainant.  In spite of it the complaint was filed after the lapse of 4 years, for this delay there is no explanation from the complaint. Instead of that complaint contended that the cause of action of file complaint is on 24.04.2014 on the date of issue of legal notice to opposite party. This contention of complainant cannot be accepted for the simple reason that The Hon’ble Apex court of India and Hon’ble National Commission, Delhi , in number of ruling has held that mere issuance of legal notice to party does not revive the cause of action. Which was occurred to complainant long back. On this observation the delaying the complaint cannot be condoned and it cannot be  accepted for the reason.

18.Further it is prime facie that admittedly there is delay of 4 years in filing the complaint. When the delay is not at all explained by complaint, with  sufficient acceptable reasons, another very important point that merits the consideration of this fora is not even a single word is  whispered by the complainant so fora as delay in filing is concerned. This shows that how he is vigilant   over his rights, the act of complaint shows that he is sleeping  over his rights. Law will help those who are vigilant over their rights, not to the persons who are  sleeping over their rights. When such being the case in our opinion the complainant is liable to be dismissed as it is highly barred by limitation accordingly  the complaint is dismissed as it  is barred by limitation,

19. In view of the above observation the point no 1 we answered in the affirmative.

20. From the above discussion we hereby proceed to pass the following :-

                                                                                                    ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. 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 the 27^th November  2017)  

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

Member.                                                          President.