A consumer commission cannot conclude that a loan has been cleared without supporting documentary evidence, and inordinate delays in filing complaints must be legally addressed and condoned before adjudication on merits.

scl29lNL9A4|20L7

ORDER

BY HON'BLE SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The Appellant/Opposite Party No.l preferred this Appeal against the Order dated 21.06.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chitradurga in consumer complaint No.107/2016 wherein the District commission had directed this Appellant to return original sale deed dated 25.03.1988 and all documents along with compensation of Rs'5,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs'5,000 against which the Appeltant before this Commission and prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

2. The Learned Counsel for Appellant and Respondent No'2 present. There is no representation on behalf of Respondent No'1' Heard from Appellant and Respondent No.2. The learned counsel for Appellant submits that the District commission allowed the complaint directing both the Respondent No.2 and this Appellant for return of all the original documents which were deposited at the time of availing the loan. In the findings the District Commission has pointed out that the opposite party No'1 i'e' society had issued a loan clearance certificate dated 08.10.2003 on behalf of Respondent No' 1 i.e., complainant for clearance of the loan. But the same document is not produced before the District commission and the District commission without any document arrived sumoto under the assumption that the loan was cleared. In the absence of any document the loan cannot said to be cleared. But the District Commission on what grounds had suggested that the loan was cleared was not understood' In fact, far the complainant had not cleared the loan so No such documents are issued either by Respondent No.2 or by this Appellant. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. Further, the Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that there is a delay in filing the complaint itself as the loan obtained in the year 1994 and proposed clearance is 08.10.2003 whereas the complainant Illed a complaint before District Commission in the yea:. 2016. There is a inordinate in filing the complaint for recovery of the deposited documents and the same was also not considered by the District Commission. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission in the interest of justice and equity as there is no any deficiency in seryice.

3. Perused the certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission and appeal memo of course there is a delay in filing the complaint and proper reasons were not provide by the complainant. The District Commission also not noted in its entire order with respect to the condonation of delay. Further, without any proper document how the District Commission arrived for conclusion that the loan was cleared. In the reasoning, the District Commission had noted that on 08.10.2003 the opposite party No.1 has issued a clearance certificate to the complainant with respect to the clearance of the loan. No such document produced before the District Commission at the time of trial. But how the Commission arrived for such conclusion are not explained. Hence, the matter requires for reconsideration before District Commission itself. Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission is set aside. Both the parties are directed to appear before District Commission on 20.02.2026 either through their respective counsel or personally to contest the matter by producing the required documents to establish their case. Further, the District Commission is directed to take up the matter a fresh by restoring in its original number and provide an opportunity to produce the documents and evidence as such dispose the matter on merits exp