MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETIES FEDERATION LIMITED vs R.MUNIRAMAIAH

THIS appeal is filed by the appellant/opposite party No. 1 i.e., A.P. Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Limited against the order of the District Forum, Chittoor in CDC No. 351/1994 dated 18.3.1995 aggrieved by the direction given to it by the District Forum, Chittoor to return the documents to the respondent/complainant and to pay damages of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 300/-.

THE case in brief is as follows : THE complainant/respondent No. 1 as a member of opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000/- from the appellant/opposite party No. 1 through the second respondent/second opposite party out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs. 60,000/-. He was paid only Rs. 12,400/- out of Rs. 18,000/- and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was retained as share capital and Rs. 600/- towards LIC premium. He did not avail further loan and repaid the loan amount along with interest by 22.1.1993. In all he paid Rs. 19,376/-. THE second respondent/second opposite party gave a ''No Due Certificate'' to the respondent/complainant on 7.12.1993 after passing a resolution and requested the appellant to return the title deeds which were deposited with it as the whole loan amount had been repaid. On 30.11.1993 the appellant issued a demand notice asking the respondent-complainant to pay Rs. 7,300/- and according to the respondent/complainant by then he had paid the entire loan amount to the second respondent/second opposite party and had received a No Due Certificate. THErefore, he filed the complaint before the District Forum. The second respondent/second opposite party remained ex-parte. The appellant/first opposite party filed its version. The objections raised were that the complainant was not a consumer. Second, the appellant had only released the first instalment of Rs. 18,000/- and thereafter the second respondent/second opposite party never asked for release of the balance loan amount out of the total loan amount of Rs. 60,000/-. The second respondent had repaid only Rs. 11,510/- towards the principal and there was still a balance of Rs. 6,490/- under principal as on 4.2.1993. The said amount had not been repaid with interest at 12% p.a. The share capital invested by the complainant was only Rs. 5,000/- and it could not be adjusted unless the loan amount due was Rs. 5,000/- or less. Hence the appellant was not responsible for the delay in returning the documents.

The District Forum on a consideration of the material on record held that the complainant/respondent was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 18,000/- out of which Rs. 12,400/- was paid to him and Rs. 5,000/- was retained towards share capital and Rs. 600/- as LIC premium and the complainant/respondent had discharged the entire loan as evidenced from Exs. A-1 to A-8. Exs. A-5 and A-6 give the list of persons who were due to pay the loan amount shown against their names. The amount against the complainant''s name was Rs. 7,540/- as on January, 1993. On 27.1.1993 the complainant paid Rs. 2,770/- through a demand draft being the balance including the interest and sent it to the appellant with a request to adjust the share capital of Rs. 5,000/- and return the documents. However the appellant had alleged that Rs. 6,490/- towards principal was still due as on 4.2.1993. It also filed Ex. B-1 loan ledger extract. In Ex. B-1 payment of Rs. 1,671/- by way of draft dated 10.7.1989 was not given credit. The complainant paid the total amount of Rs. 19,386/- as per Ex. A-8 plus his share capital of Rs. 5,000/- retained by the appellant. Whereas he received a loan of only Rs. 12,400/- in hand plus Rs. 600/- towards insurance premium which comes to Rs. 24,386/-. Therefore, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the whole loan amount was discharged by the complainant and directed the appellant to return all the documents including title deeds belonging to complainant within 2 months together with damages of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 300/-.

QUESTIONING the said order, this appeal is filed by the appellant. It is admitted that though Rs. 60,000/- was sanctioned, the first instalment of Rs. 18,000/- was alone disbursed on 3.10.1988 and out of that Rs. 5,000/- was deducted towards share capital and Rs. 600/- was recovered towards LIC premium under Group Insurance Scheme and the net amount paid to the respondent/complainant was Rs. 12,400/- only. It is admitted that the first respondent/complainant had submitted title deeds regarding plot and the house to be constructed in favour of respondent No. 2 which was in turn assigned in favour of the appellant. As per the conditions of assignment deed Clause 2(a) there is a condition that the member and the society i.e., respondents 1 and 2 should take up the responsibility for repayment of the entire loan to facilitate redemption of the mortgaged property. They further alleged that respondents 1 and 2 have colluded and made a false claim, since respondent No. 2 has given ''No Due Certificate''. All these facts were brought to the notice of the District Forum and they were overruled. We heard the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 on 13.6.2001 and it was posted for arguments of appellant. However on 28.6.2001 also the appellant or his learned Counsel was not present and hence the appeal was reserved for orders.

GOING through the records and after hearing the arguments of the respondent/complainant, we find that the District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the whole loan amount was discharged by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had passed a resolution and also gave a ''No Due Certificate'' to that extent. We find that as on January, 1993 first respondent owed Rs. 7,540/- and he requested the appellant to adjust his share capital of Rs. 5,000/- and paid the balance and as per Ex. A-1 through draft an amount of Rs. 1,671/- and sent the same to the appellant. As per Ex. A-8 dated 13.11.1991 (sic. 1993), the second respondent wrote a letter requesting the appellant to return the title deeds to its members who had repaid the loan amount including that of respondent No. 1. We have no doubt in our mind that the whole loan amount was discharged and the appellant refused to return the title deeds deposited with them which amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum under appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As per our order dated 5.3.2001, Counsel for the appellant deposited certain documents on 22.3.2001. However, on verification by respondent No. 1/complainant it was found that still some more documents are not deposited. The appellant is, therefore, directed to comply with the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance six weeks. Appeal dismissed.