State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Secretary Rasipuram Taluk Co-Op ... vs R. Elayappan S/O. Ramasamy 8, East ... on 24 August, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice R. REGUPATHI PRESIDENT Tmt. VASUGI RAMANAN MEMBER
Thiru S. SAMBANDAM MEMBER II F.A.NO.730/2011 (Against order in C.C.NO.36/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Namakkal) DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2012 The Secretary Rasipuram Taluk Co-Op Housing Society S.L.M.H.S.54 Mr. P. Mathivanan Rasipuram Counsel for Namakkal District Appellant / 1st opposite party Vs.
1. R. Elayappan S/o. Ramasamy 8, East Street, Pattanam Post Rasipuram Taluk
2. Tamil Nadu Beneficiary Association Rep. by its Secretary K. Subrayan 40-B1, Senthamangalam Road (Served absent) Namakkal 1&2 Respondents/ Complainants
3. The Special Officer Rasipuram Taluk Co-op Housing Society S.L.M.H.S.G.54 (Served absent) Rasipuram, Namakkal District 3rd Respondents/ 2nd Opposite party The 1&2 Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.28.2.2011 in CC. No.36/2007.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:
JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT (Open court)
1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant.
2. The complainant stating that he borrowed loan from the 1st opposite party, but even after full and final settlement of loan on 30.6.2006, the title deed, deposited by way of mortgage was not returned to the complainant inspite of request, thus alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, praying for compensation and cost apart from releasing the title deed.
3. The appellant/ 1st opposite party had taken defense, stating that the title deed could not be returned, since it is a group loan and the other members in the group did not clear their loan and further penal interest also accrued to the tune of Rs.18800/-, therefore it could not be returned. The 2nd opposite party remained absent before the District Forum.
4. The District Forum, after careful consideration of materials on record, and after hearing the arguments of 1st opposite party/ appellant, and complainant, affixed the seal of deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, passed an order directing the opposite parties to return the title deed, alongwith compensation and cost, which is impugned before us by the 1st opposite party.
5. Pending appeal, the appellant /1st opposite party, filed a memo, stating that the claim made by the complainant was settled out of court by paying the amount awarded and produced acknowledgement for receipt of Rs.11000/- and the title deed. Further submitted that under such circumstances, the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Recording the memo, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
The Memo shall form part of the record.
Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant, duly discharged.
S. SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN R. REGUPATHI MEMBER II MEMBER PRESIDENT