JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Complainant challenging the order dated 14.05.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.895 of 2011.  By the impugned order, the State Commission modified the order of the District Consumer

-2-

Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short “the District Forum”) dated 30.05.2011 in Complaint No.22 of 2010.  The District Forum had directed the Respondent (hereinafter referred as “the Bank”) to return within a month the original title deeds as well as other documents which were received by the Bank at the time of granting of loan as well as other facilities and awarded compensation to the tune of ₹50,000/- and cost of ₹2,500/-.

2.      The brief admitted facts of the case are that the Complainant had taken a loan from the Bank and had repaid the said loan.  Thereafter, No Dues Certificate had been issued to the Complainant.  While taking the loan, one of the Directors of the Complainant had mortgaged his property and had deposited original papers of property with the Bank.  Even on repayment of the loan and issuance of No Dues Certificate, the documents related to the mortgaged property were not returned to the Complainant.  Aggrieved by the refusal of return of the documents by the Bank, the Complainant had filed Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2010. 

3.      The Respondent had filed Appeal No.895 of 2011.  The appellate court had initially dismissed the Appeal.  However, on an application bearing CM No.209 of 2012 of the Respondent, the

-3-

State Commission modified the order and deleted two lines.  The deleted portion is reproduced as under:

                    “We did not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order.  Hence this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.”  

4.      Aggrieved by this order as well as the order dated 14.05.2012 whereby the State Commission while disposing of the Appeal, had directed to release the original documents to the Complainant after the DRT proceedings were finalised, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant.

5.      It is argued by learned Counsel for the Complainant that the order is without jurisdiction and legally wrong since the proceedings before the DRT are not pending against the Complainant but are pending against another Company called Pragati Telematics Limited which is an independent entity and which has nothing to do with the Complainant which is also an independent entity.  It is submitted that the order of the District Forum be restored and the Bank should be directed to release the documents to the Complainant immediately.

6.      It is argued on behalf of the Bank that the Directors in both the Companies, namely, Pragati Silicon Limited, which is the Petitioner herein and Pragati Telematics Limited are the same.  It

-4-

is submitted that Pragati Telematics Limited Company had also taken some loan from the Bank which they had failed to repay and theref