JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainants/respondents took a housing loan from G.E. Money Housing Finance. The case of the complainants/respondents is that while taking loan, they had deposited their original Title Deeds of a residential flat at Palace Asha, 18/1, A.K. Mukherjee Road, North 24 Paraganas, Kolkata with G.E. Money Housing Finance. This is also the case of the complainants that despite the loan having been repaid, the original Title Deeds of the property which they had deposited with G.E. Money Housing Finance, were not returned to them. The petitioner, in the -1- meanwhile, purchased the housing loan business of G.E. Money Housing Finance. The complainants therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking compensation on account of failure of the petitioner to return the original Title Deeds to them.

2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia stated in its reply that when the loan was acquired by the petitioner company, it had received (i) original agreement for sale dtd.

29.5.2007 between Subodh Kumar Banerjee, Gouranga Das and SG Enterprises (Developers) and Joginder Singh and Harjot Singh Anand, (ii) Photocopy of copy of site map of the property, (iii) original loan agreement and (iv) original legal scrutiny report, from the original company. It was also stated in the written version to the Consumer Complaint that apartment from those documents, no other document was received by the petitioner from G.E. Money Housing Finance.

3. The District Forum allowed the Consumer Complaint with the following directions: That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the O.P. with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only. O.P. is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainants on account of expenditure incurred for registration of the flat on the 4 th floor of premises No.18/1, A.K. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata 700090 within 30 days from the date of this order. O.P. is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only to the complainants for causing mental agony and harassment within the stipulated period. O.P. is also directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to this Forum as punitive damage for practicing unfair trade practice within the stipulated period.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 01.10.2019, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay only a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the complainants. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Commission.

5. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the original Title Deeds were never deposited by the complainants with G.E. Money Housing Finance and therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to return those Title Deeds to the complainants. However, on a perusal of the reply to the Consumer Complaint, I find that the petitioner did not specifically allege in the said reply to the Consumer Complaint that the complainants had not deposited the original Title Deeds of the flat with G.E. Money Housing Finance, the plea taken by them being that they had not received the original Title Deeds from the aforesaid company. Therefore, there was no specific denial of the case of the complainants that the original Title Deeds were deposited by them with G.E. Money Housing Finance.

6. Moreover, no one from G.E. Money Housing Finance was produced before the District Forum to prove that the original Title Deeds had not been deposited with them at the time the housing loan was taken. If the Title Deeds had not been deposited, nothing prevented the petitioner from filing an affidavit of the official from G.E. Money Housing Finance who processed the loan granted by the said company to the complainants. In the absence of such an affidavit, there would be no reason to disbelieve the complainants in this regard. Even otherwise, a financer which is granting loan against a property, would normally retain the original Title Deeds and not only their copy since the original Title Deeds can be used for creating an equitable mortgage elsewhere unless they are deposited with the financer.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find absolutely no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts returned by the fora below. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed. ......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER