ORDER

Complainant/petitioner took a loan of Rs.1 lakh from Sarv Kalyan Co-operative House Building Society, which merged with Silver Kites Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Respondent No.1 herein, in 1999. The amount was to be repaid in instalments along with interest. According to the petitioner, he had repaid the entire amount through Bank Draft on 26.3.2003 for which a receipt had been issued to the petitioner. At the time of obtaining the loan, the petitioner had deposited the original title deeds of immovable property, which was kept by the Society as collateral security and it was agreed that the same would be returned to the petitioner when the loan along with interest was cleared. Despite repayment of the entire amount, the respondent did not return the original documents of title to the petitioner, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to return the original documents of title to the petitioner along with Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation. Aggrieved by this, respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum and allowed the appeal by observing thus :

“Certain facts in this case are not disputed that the complainant had obtained loan from the opposite parties and at the time of advancement of the loan amount, sale-deed and Naksha of the complainant’s plot were retained by the opposite parties. It is not disputed that the documents have been retained by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 has already issued the ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the complainant in respect of the clearance of the loan amount. This fact has yet to be proved on record that the complainant has repaid the loan amount as per agreement executed between the parties. The Society is however disputing the payment of the amount with respect to clearance of the loan amount paid by the complainant on the plea that the complainant who was a member of the Managing Committee of the Society at the relevant time in connivance with the then Secretary of the Society has embezzled the amount to the tune of Rs.83.69 lacs for which a criminal case bearing F.I.R. No.315 dated

13.7.2002 has been registered and the complainant along with certain persons including one Satish Verma has been charge-sheeted and is facing trial in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri and the case is fixed for evidence.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that the complainant is not entitled to get back the documents sought by him till the decision of the criminal case. The District Forum is erroneous for issuing direction to the opposite parties to return the documents of the complainant by ignoring the factual position on record and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has repaid the entire loan amount, he is entitle to reclaim the original title deeds which were deposited with the respondent as collateral security. Normally we would have acceded to his request, but in the present case, we find that the petitioner was a member of the Managing Committee of the Society in which allegedly a sum of Rs.83.69 lakh has been embezzled for which a criminal case bearing F.I.R. No.315 dated

13.7.2002 has been registered. Petitioner is one of the accused persons in the said case. Till the decision of the criminal case, original documents cannot be returned.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Dismissed.

......................J ASHOK BHAN PRESIDENT ...................... VINEETA RAI MEMBER