State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Department Of Industries vs Gurcharan Singh on 12 August, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.590 of 2012
Date of Institution: 14.05.2012.
Date of Decision: 12.08.2015.
1. Department of Industries, through its Director, Punjab, Sector-
17, Chandigarh.
2. Deputy General Manager, Department of Industries, Near
Dholewal Chowk, Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana.
.....Appellants/opposite parties
Versus
Gurcharan Singh son of Shri Ajit Singh son of Shri Kartar Singh,
resident of B-XV-456, Nirankari Mohalla, Kucha no.1, Oswal Street,
Ludhiana.
.....Respondent/complainant
First appeal against order dated
26.03.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : None.
For the respondent : Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate. .............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellants of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against respondent herein (the complainant in the complaint), assailing order dated 26.03.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana (in short, First Appeal No.590 of 2012 2 "the District Forum"), accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to return the original conveyance deed of plot no.717 Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and OPs were also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation.
2. Complainant Gurcharan Singh has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the allegations that his father Ajit Singh availed Industrial Loan from the OP during his life time and thereafter returned the same and nothing remained due from his father to OP. The OP got deposited the original conveyance deed of Plot no.717, Industrial Area B, Ludhiana as security from the father of the complainant at the time of financing the loan to him. OP had not returned the original conveyance deed, despite clearance of the loan amount. The father of the complainant executed a legal, valid and registered Will dated 30.11.1990 bearing vasika no.1207 in favour of the complainant. The complainant served legal notice dated 09.02.2011 upon the OP, but to no effect. The complainant has filed the complaint against the OPs directing them to return the original conveyance deed of above said plot, besides Rs.5 lakhs for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply. It was averred in written reply by the OPs that they advanced the loan to First Appeal No.590 of 2012 3 the father of the complainant Ajit Singh. The OPs admitted this fact that above said conveyance deed was deposited by the father of the complainant with OPs at the time of taking loan by him. It was further pleaded that conveyance deed was sent to the office of District Attorney Ludhiana, vide memo no.2010-R dated 14.02.1963. Accordingly, OPs requested District Attorney Ludhiana, vide memo no.2159 dated 03.05.2010 to return the original deed. The OPs further pleaded that they again sent a reminder to the District Attorney, vide memo no.6117 dated 22.11.2011, but the same has not been returned by the office of District Attorney Ludhiana. The OPs further pleaded that as soon as the original conveyance deed was received, it would be returned to the complainant. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence, the affidavit of Vishav Bandhu, General Manager of OP Ex.RW-1/A alongwith documents Annexure-A to Annexure-C and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the compliant of the complainant. Dissatisfied with the above order, the OPs now appellant have carried this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent, as none appeared for the appellant at the time of arguments of this appeal before this Commission after April, 2015. We proceed to First Appeal No.590 of 2012 4 decide the controversy on the basis of its evidence on the record. From evaluation of evidence on the record, we find that it is proved fact that father of complainant availed Industrial Loan from OP by depositing Original Conveyance Deed in question with the OPs. The loan taken by Ajit Singh father of the complainant has since been cleared and nothing remained due towards loan against father of the complainant. The OPs have not returned the original conveyance deed to the father of the complainant and thereafter to the complainant after his death. The OPs relied upon the affidavit of Vishav Bandhu General Manager of OPs at Ludhiana Ex.RW-1/A. He stated in his affidavit that original sale deed has been sent to the office of District Attorney Ludhiana through memo no.2010-R, dated 14.02.1963 and it has not been received from that office, despite memo no.2159 dated 03.05.2010. He further stated that OPs further sent a reminder to District Attorney Ludhiana, vide memo no.6117 dated 22.11.2011, but it has not been received. From conclusion of evidence on the record and hearing the respective contentions of the parties raised in the pleadings, we find that District Forum has justly passed the order by directing OPs to return the original conveyance deed of plot no.717, Industrial Area-B to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. It is the duty of the OPs to get back the original conveyance deed, wherever it was. The District Forum rightly mulcted the OPs with the compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.3000/- as costs of First Appeal No.590 of 2012 5 litigation. We do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum calling for any interference therein in this appeal. The order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2012 is affirmed in this appeal.
6. In the light of our above discussions, there is no merit in the appeal of the appellants and the same is hereby dismissed.
7. The appellants had deposited the amount of Rs.6500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant, now respondent of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the OPs/appellants to the complainant, as per order of the District Forum Ludhiana.
8. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 05.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER August 12, 2015.
(MM)