J.Jayaram, Member (J) - (1.) THE case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant availed loan of Rs. 40 lacs from the opposite parties, and for this purpose, at the time of availing the loan, he deposited the following original documents with the opposite parties: (a) Original Sale Deed registered as Doc No. 2408/1963, dated 27.4.1963, SRO: Coimbatore; (b) Original Sale Deed registered as Doc No. 1714/1975, dated 25.4.1975, SRO: Coimbatore; (c) Will dated 28.3.2006, registered as Doc No. 1820/2006, SRO: Coimbatore; (d) Receipt No. 1659; (e) Receipt Nos. 1897 and 1898; (f) Encumbrance Certificate, dated 28.2.2003; (g) Tax Receipt, dated 22.3.2005; and (h) Tax Receipt, dated 22.3.2005. The opposite parties agreed to release additional loan as and when required by the complainant, but however, the opposite parties refused to release the additional loan as agreed to, and so the complainant decided to avail Home Equity Loan from Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited for Rs. 75 lacs on depositing the original title deeds and other relevant documents. Though the Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd. agreed to disburse loan of Rs. 75 lacs, they released only Rs. 40 lacs being the amount due and liable by the complainant to the opposite parties, in order to discharge the loan with the opposite parties and accordingly the loan with the opposite parties was completely discharged; but the opposite parties did not return all the original documents deposited with them, and out of all 8 documents entrusted to them only 6 original documents were returned and two documents viz. two original sale deeds were not returned on the pretext that the two sale deeds are not traceable. In these circumstances, the Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd. released a total amount of Rs. 60 lacs and they refused to release further amount of Rs. 15 lacs since the two original sale deeds were not produced by the complainant. Not returning the two original sale deeds by the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to produce the two sale deeds dated 27.4.1963 registered as Doc. No. 2408/1963 at SRO: Coimbatore; and Sale Deed dated 25.4.1975, registered as Doc No. 1714/1975, SRO: Coimbatore and to pay a sum of Rs. 30 lacs as compensation for mental agony and hardship and to pay costs of the proceedings. The opposite parties filed their version stating as follows: As per the agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties, any dispute that may arise between the parties has to be decided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and so the State Consumer Commission cannot entertain the complaint. Further, the State Consumer Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further, the dispute requires detailed evidence to be adduced which only Civil Courts have jurisdiction to do so, and the State Consumer Commission cannot entertain the complaint.
(2.) THE two original sale deeds are misplaced and lost and not traceable and so they are not in a position to return the two documents. Proof affidavit of the complainant filed along with 13 documents filed and marked as Ex. A1 to A13 on the side of the complainant. The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit, adopted by the 1st opposite party. No document filed on the side of the opposite parties: Ex. A1 is the communication dated 1.6.2009 to the opposite parties; Ex. A2 is the cheque dated 31.5.2009 issued by Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd. in favour of the opposite parties; Ex. A3 is the communication dated 29.7.2009 addressed to the complainant by the opposite parties; Ex. A4 is the undated communication addressed to the complainant by the opposite parties; Ex. A5 is the paper publication issued by the opposite parties, dated 31.7.2009; Ex. A6 is the legal notice dated 15.9.2009 by the complainant; Ex. A7 is the No Objection Certificate dated 16.9.2009 issued by the opposite parties; Ex. A8 is the reply notice dated 23.9.2009 issued by the opposite parties; Ex. A9 is the EMI paid to Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd. from 4.6.2009 to 5.9.2011; Ex. A10 is the foreclosure statement dated 17.8.2011 issued by the Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd.; Ex. A11 is the Welcome letter from Fullerton India, dated 27.8.2011; Ex. A12 is the No Due Certificate dated 6.9.2011 issued by Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd., and Ex. A13 is the EMI schedule by Fullerton India - -5.9.2011 to 5.8.2026. The points for consideration are: (a) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the State Consumer Commission in view of the agreement between the parties that dispute if any arises, it can be settled under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act? (b) Whether the State Consumer Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? (c) Whether only the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and whether the State Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint? (d) Whether the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice and whether there is deficiency in service on their part? (e) Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation from the opposite parties? and (f) To what relief the complainant is entitled. Point No. 1:
(3.) IT is contended by the opposite parties that there is a clause in the agreement between the parties that dispute if any arises, that could be settled under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and so the complaint is not maintainable before the State Consumer Commission. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law in force as contemplated under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act which reads as follows: "The provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.";