Gollappalli Vijay Srinivas Rao vs LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD

THE complainants, Gollappalli Vijay Srinivas Rao and Smt. Vandrasi Aruna Kumari w/o G. Vijay Srinivas Rao obtained housing loan in the sum of Rs. 10 lakh in the year 2005 from the LIC Housing Finance Limited, the respondent. They were to construct a house on a land valued at Rs. 40 lakh. The said amount was to be paid within a period of 20 years in instalments. The complainants also deposited the original sale deed of the said house, original link document and original plan. In December, 2005, the respondent informed the complainants that it had misplaced the original documents and also directed them to submit an affidavit in this regard. They further informed that they would not release the second and third instalments until the complainants deposited the above said affidavit. It is alleged that due to negligence of the respondent, the complainant No. 1 had suffered coronary artery disease. He remained admitted in Appollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam. They had to incur a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 towards medical treatment. The complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that the respondent be directed to return the documents of title and pay compensation of Rs. 18 lakh besides cost of Rs. 70,000.

THE respondent admitted that it had misplaced the above said documents. They explained that the documents were lost in transit and could not be traced out in spite of their best efforts. The District Forum directed the respondent to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000. The State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the complainants. The complainants have now filed the present revision petition.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the complainants/petitioners. He conceded that the order passed by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission is correct. He did not pick up a conflict with the said order. He said that in another case filed by the respondent, the complainants are being harassed and mentally tortured. He further argued that the order of the State Commission is being not complied with and on the contrary, the other party is seeking compensation and demanding money.

WE see no force in these submissions. The only remedy for the complainants is to approach the executing Court and get the decree executed. We are not concerned with the problems which have cropped up afterwards. It is expected that the State Commission will take care of appeal filed by the respondent before it. We cannot arrogate to ourselves the powers of Fora below. The petitioner should ventilate its grievance before the State Commission where the appeal is stated to be pending and their final decision is yet to be taken. So far as the instant dispute is concerned, we find that both the Fora below have given the correct verdict. It may also be mentioned that the documents were lost in the year 2005. The complainant had taken treatment in 2008. Both the incidents have got no nexus. The complainants can have the certificate from LIC and also get the certificate, copy of the documents of sale deed, etc. from the Registry concerned. The explanation given by the respondent that the said documents were lost in transit appears to be true. So far as their negligence is concerned, the award of Rs. 50,000 as compensation appears to be sufficient. The complainants should get the decree executed.

THE revision petition is lame of strength and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.