TELECOMMUNICATION CIRCLE AMBALA HARYANA Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Chand while being in service of appellant -opposite party had taken a loan of Rs. 37,000/ - in the year 1994. He deposited the original sale -deed of the land as security with the appellant. He returned the aforesaid loan amount in two instalments. First instalment of Rs. 18,500/ - was paid on 1.2.1994 and second instalment of the same amount was paid on 29.3.1994. In this manner, he has cleared loan amount along with interest amount prior to the date of retirement. Ultimately, the complainant retired on 31.1.1998 on the post of Section Supervisor from Telegraph Branch, Gurgaon of the appellant. He requested the appellant to return the registered sale -deed to him vide letters dated 5.12.1998, 9.1.1999, 13.2.1999, 30.3.1999, 17.6.1999, 22.7.1999 and 7.9.1999 but without any response from the appellant. Forced by the circumstances, he filed the present complaint seeking direction for the return of the original sale -deed and further prayed for payment of Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment. In defence, the appellant took a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the District Forum to try the complaint as the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the remedy available to him was under Sections 14 and 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. On merits, it was pleaded that two copies of re -conveyance deed duly completed were sent to the complainant on 24.12.1999 for registration with Tehsildar, Gurgaon through incharge D.T.O., Gurgaon but the complainant refused to accept the copies and as the complainant has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, his complaint was liable to be rejected.

(2.) THE District Forum, on appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, came to the conclusion that the complainant had re -paid the loan amount and for that reason directed the appellant to release the original sale deed within a month of the receipt of the copy of the order. In addition, Rs. 1,000/ - was awarded as compensation to the complainant for the loss suffered due to the delay committed by the appellant. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we accept the appeal and while setting aside the impugned order, dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.