M.S. Janarthanam, President - This action came up for admission before us. We heard the arguments of Mr. George Charles learned Counsel for the complainants.

2. From a thorough scanning of the averments and the materials placed on record, we are able to perceive that notwithstanding the fact that the complainants were ready and willing to discharge the amount due under the mortgage to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party did not at all react or respond and this sort of an act on the part of the Opposite Party is deficiency in service. This apart, withholding of the documents by the Opposite Party would come within the ambit of unfair trade practice.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the averments made in the complaint and other materials placed on record would not point out any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party or any unfair trade practice adopted by them. It is not the case of the complainants that they in fact tendered the amounts due to the Opposite Party either in cash or by way of a demand draft calling for the discharge of the mortgage created in their favour and the Opposite Party delayed the matter for pretty long so as to constitute deficiency in service on their part. This apart, the Opposite Party is perfectly entitled to withhold the documents till upto the discharge of the mortgage amount and the fact that the Opposite Party withheld the documents can by no stretch of imagination be construed as unfair trade practice falling within the four corners of the definition as contained in Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4. It is in this view of the matter, we have no option to reject the complaint in limine. The complaint is therefore rejected in limine.

Complaint rejected in limine.