Complaints filed on: 23-09-2020

                                                      Disposed on: 11-08-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.53/2020

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

                                                K.N.Narasimhamurthy

                                                Aged about 46 years,

                                                Veternary V.D., Sampige

                                                C/o. P.A.C.S Building,

                                                Nittur Village, Gubbi Taluk,

                                                Tumakuru District

(By Sri.K.V.Srinivasa Naidu, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite party:-       

                                                The Manager,

                                                L.I.C Housing Finance Ltd.,

                                                L.I.C Branch NO.2,

          2^nd Floor, Siddaganga

Complex, B.H.Road,

Tumakuru District

(By Sri.B.A.Gururaja, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI.KUMARA.N, MEMBER

This complaint is filed by Sri.K.N.Narasimhamurthy, residing at Nittur Village, Gubbi taluk, Tumakuru District to direct the Opposite Party-the Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd, Tumakuru (hereinafter called as OP) to hand over all the original documents, i.e., registered sale deed dated 19-08-2015 and other original documents to the complainant pertaining to loan account no.411400001339.

2. It is the case of complainant that the OP has sanctioned loan of Rs.6,75,000-00 on 24-07-2015 in loan account no.411400001339 to the complainant for purchase of property/site. Accordingly the complainant has purchased the site bearing No.24, Khata No.32/87/3065, PID No.29618 measuring East-West:40 feet and North-South:30 feet situated at ward No.29, Upparahalli, Amarajyothi Nagara Extension, Tumkur city and the said property is registered in the name of complainant.    

3. The complainant has repaid the entire loan amount along with interest of the said loan account. Thereafter the complainant has approached the OP several times and on 13-08-2020 he has given application to the OP requesting to return all the original documents submitted at the time of sanction of loan amount, but OP has totally refused to return the original documents submitted at the time of sanction of loan. Thereafter, the complainant has got issued legal notice to OP on 26-08-2020 but the OP has given evasive reply to the legal notice of complainant. Hence, this complaint.

4. The OP after the service of notice appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint involved several complicated facts which cannot be decided in the summary proceedings. The complainant cannot invoke the provision of CP Act hence, there is no cause of action to file the complaint.  The OP further contended that in respect of loan the complainant has not submitted /deposited the original Sale Deed dated 18-08-2015 or alleged Registered Sale Deed dated 19-08-2018 and other documents. If the OP has received any original documents from its costumer, it has issued an endorsement or list of original documents received from its customer. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied as false and the OP requested to dismiss the complaint. 

          5. The Complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced 12 documents which are marked as Exs-P1 to P12. The Area Manager of OP one Venkataramaiah Amuri filed affidavit evidence.

6. We have heard the oral arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and OP and in addition to that written brief submitted by the OP and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OP in not returning the original Registered Sale Deed dated 18-08-2015/19-8-2015 and other original documents?
2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

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

Point No.1: In the negative   

Point No.2: In the partly affirmative for the                  

below

REASONS

          8. Point No.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that complainant has submitted the original registered sale deed and other documents to the OP at the time of sanction of loan for the purchase of site. As against this the learned counsel for OP submitted that if this OP has received any original documents from its customers, the OP has issued an endorsement as list of original documents received from its customers/complainant in respect of loan transaction. Further the learned counsel for OP argued that the complainant is making illegal demand for alleged original sale deed dated 18-08-2015/registered sale deed dated 19-08-2015. When the complainant has not produced/deposited the original sale deed/documents to the OP the question of returning the same does not arise.

          9. The complainant has produced the copy of 1.Registered sale deed dated 19-08-2015/Ex.P1; 2. EC of purchased site/Ex.P2; 3.PID/Assessment of the site/Ex.P3; 4.Aadhar card, Voter ID and PAN of complainant/Ex P4; 5.Loan sanction letter given by OP/Ex.P5; 6.Letter from the OP showing loan amount and repayment installments/Ex.P6; 7.Loan sanctioned letter of last page/Ex.P7; 8.Bank statement of complainant it shows the repayment/Ex.P8; 9.Letter given by the OP to the complainant showing the loan paid amount and outstanding loan amount/Ex P9; 10.Letter given by complainant to OP/Ex.P10; 11.Postal acknowledgement due/Ex.P11; 12.Legal notice/Ex P12. These documents show that the OP has sanctioned loan to the complainant for purchase of property/site. Accordingly the complainant has purchased the site and same was repaid. There is no supporting documents/evidence produced by the complainant that the original sale deed dated 18-08-2015 and other original documents were submitted/ deposited to the OP.

10. The burden is on the complainant to prove that the original documents specially original sale deed dated 18-8-2015/ 19-8-2015 were deposited/ submitted to the OP. Thus the complainant has failed to produce the believable evidence that the complainant has submitted/deposited the original documents to the OP to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP. The OP in reply notice dated 5-9-2020 admitted that the complainant has produced the original sale agreement dated 9-7-2015 and the complainant has refused to receive the same. In the view of the above discussion there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed without cost. However, the OP is directed to return the original sale agreement dated 9-7-2015 and other Xerox documents to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 11^th day of August, 2021).

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT