Assistant Housing Commissioner vs DHARAM PAL

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 07/553, "Assistant Housing Commissioner (Loans) versus Dharam Pal ", vide which while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 13.04.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in complaint case No. 312/2005, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant Dharam Pal raised a loan of Rs.5,000/- from the petitioner on 27.06.1978, payable in 20 equal instalments of Rs.250/- per month. The repayment was to commence after 18 months from the date of receipt of first instalment of Rs.1500/- which included principal amount of Rs.250/-. The complainant made payment of 3 instalments together and deposited a sum of Rs.750/- on 26.03.1983. However, the OP referred the case for recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue to the collector to recover a sum of Rs.5,000/- as principal amount and Rs.4,245.87ps. as interest although a sum of Rs.750/- had already been paid by the complainant. According to the complainant, a total sum of Rs.9,224/- was paid by him as full and final payment to the Collector. However, the OP did not return the original documents to him, although several requests were made to this effect. The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. and the return of the original documents and cost of litigation. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the OP had committed deficiency in service by not accounting for a sum of Rs.750/- as already paid by the complainant. The District Forum directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental harassment suffered by the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.500/- as cost of litigation. An appeal against this order was made before the State Commission which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.10.2007. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. It has been stated in the grounds of revision petition that the complainant was wilful defaulter in the repayment of loan taken by him from the petitioner. He had not deposited a copy of challan with respect to sum of Rs.750/- deposited by him in the year 1983. The complainant had deposited the said challan in the year 2003, and the amount was appropriately adjusted by the petitioner. It has further been stated that the request made by the petitioner to the District Collector for recovery of loan amount was based on calculation upto 25.09.1984, wherein the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.5700/- as principal and Rs.4243/- as interest till that date. The respondent was also liable to pay interest for the period from 3.09.1984 to 2.09.1984 upto the date of full and final payment.

IT was stated by the counsel for the respondent that the entire outstanding amount had already been paid by the respondent to the petitioner and his original documents should be ordered to be released by the petitioner.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It is clearly admitted from the record that the petitioner failed to take into account the amount deposited by the complainant for the first three instalments (total Rs.750/-) before sending the necessary recovery certificate to the District Collector. It has also been admitted that the principal amount of Rs.5,000/- and the interest of Rs.4244/- has already been recovered from the complainant. The petitioner has also admitted that they have corrected their record and given a credit of Rs.750/- to the complainant. The State Commission have rightly observed that had the amount of Rs.750/- been duly shown in record, the interest amount would have been reduced and the complainant would have been saved from the agony of reference sent to the Collector for the recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue. From the above discussion, it is clear that the District Forum and the State Commission have passed their order after making proper analysis of the facts on record and awarded a sum of Rs.2500/- to the complainant. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission and District Forum are upheld. The petitioner is directed to return the original documents of the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this year. There shall be no order as to costs.