IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Dispute – By no stretch of imagination, the receipt of amount more than Rs.20,000/- without cheque is not relevant issue for adjudication of the consumer disputes between the respondent and appellant.

ORDER

Shaila D. Wandhare, Member.—This is an appeal preferred by the original opposite party, State Bank of India through its Chief Manager, being aggrieved by the order passed on 04/01/2017 of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yavatmal (for short as “learned District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.34/2015, vide Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. The facts emerge from the present appeal is that the original complainant/respondent had availed the housing loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from appellant against the plot No.15 of Dahiwalkar Plot Yavatmal and mortgaged the said property depositing original sale deed of said property and had repaid said loan fully. The original complainant/respondent had also entered into agreement to sell of area 300 sq.ft. out of plot no.15 of Dahiwalkar Layout Yavatmal for a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per sq.ft. and received earnest amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The original complainant/respondent could not perform his part of contract due to non-return of original sale documents of property from appellant instead request for time and again. Therefore, original complainant/respondent has returned the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- along-with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and thereby sustained loss due to alleged deficiency in service of appellant. So, the original complainant/respondent filed consumer complaint against the appellant and prayed for direction to return original sale deed of property and also claimed for compensation and cost of proceeding.

3. The appellant resisted the claim before the learned District Forum and denied the contention of the respondent on the ground that the appellant could not return the original documents of sale deed due to audit which continued for a month. The appellant through its officials tried to return original documents of respondent and tried to inform on mobile to come at Bank to comply the procedures and to collect documents but it could not be collected. The original document of sale deed being valuable could not sent to the respondent through postal authority. The respondent allegedly contended to enter into agreement to sell for a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- for just area of 300 sq.ft. and received an earnest amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with no details of such receipt when transaction beyond Rs.20,000/- needs to be made through cheque and thereby, the agreement to sell alleged to be executed by respondent in respect to subject property was fake one. The payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to vendor on failure to perform alleged agreement is also false. The appellant contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the respondent and therefore, appellant is not liable for compensation and cost. Thus, they prayed for to dismiss the complaint.

4. After given consideration to the evidence of the parties and their documents filed in support thereof, learned District Forum by order dated 04/01/2017 allowed the Consumer Complaint No.34/2015 and directed the appellant to hand over the property documents and also to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as a compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards mental and physical agony and Rs.3,000/- as a cost of proceeding. Being aggrieved by impugned order of the learned District Forum, the present appeal preferred by the appellant vide Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

5. We have heard the arguments of learned Advocate Shri. Dharav appeared for the appellant. The appellant has filed pursis on 20/02/2023 and submitted that the written notes of arguments treated as an oral argument. Respondent – Mr. Ramesh Narayanrao Nakhle is present in person. We have also considered the written notes of arguments filed by the respective parties.

6. It has argued by the learned Advocate of the appellant that there was an audit in the Bank and therefore, the appellant unable to return the original sale deed of the respondent but after the audit, officials of the appel