IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION Nos.3468 of 2007 and 8254 of 2007 Between: A.P.State Financial Corporation, Ongole, represented by its Assistant Manager (Financial). … Petitioner And Akbar Basha. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION Nos.3468 of 2007 and 8254 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) 1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same and inter connected with each other, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By means of filing these writ petitions, the petitioner invoked the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the orders in F.A.Nos.346 and 790 of 2004, both dated 23.10.2006 passed by the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, “the State Commission”), preferred against C.D.No.174 of 2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole and to quash the same. 3. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows: The respondent herein who is complainant, filed a petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating that the petitioner herein who is opposite party, closed his business premises viz., Popular Tyre Retrading, Ongole and sealed the same on the ground of non-payment of loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- including interest and at that stage, compromise talks were held at Zonal Office, Vijayawada on 24.11.2000 wherein the complainant has agreed to pay the balance of Rs.4,15,000/- on or before 31.03.2001 towards full satisfaction of the loan amount and the opposite party agreed to handover the keys to the complainant to run the business. As per the one time settlement, the complainant discharged the entire loan, thereafter when the complainant has approached the opposite party and sought for returning the original documents, the opposite party failed to return the original documents. Because of non-returning of original documents deposited with the Corporation, the complainant had suffered mentally and physically and also lost his reputation in the public due to the acts of the opposite party. Thereafter the keys were handed over to the complainant in the month of April 2001, but the opposite party did not return the original documents. Hence, there is a deficiency of service. 4. The Corporation filed counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the opposite party seized the machinery and kept in the premises by appointing a watchman for watch and ward of the assets. When the complainant approached the opposite party for settlement of the loan amount, the Corporation approved to close the loan amount on one time settlement basis by accepting Rs.4,15,000/-. The complainant paid that amount and took possession of the machinery on 03.04.2001. In addition to the agreed amount of Rs.4,15,000/- by way of one time settlement, the complainant has to pay Rs.11,783/- and subsequent interest on it towards the watchman charges and incidental charges from 31.10.2000 up to handing over the assets. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the corporation prayed to dismiss the complaint. 5. To substantiate the case of the complainant, Exs.A1 to A10 were marked and on behalf of the opposite party, Exs.B1 to B3 documents were marked. 6. The District Forum upon consideration of the material on record held that there is a deficiency of service in not returning the title deeds of the complainant and thereby the complainant sustained mental agony, and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed appeal in F.A.No.346 of 2004 and the complainant filed appeal in F.A.No.790 of 2004 before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the F.A.No.790 of 2004 enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and dismissed the F.A.No.346 of 2004, confirming the finding of the District Forum with regard to the deficiency of service. Questioning the same, the Corporation filed these writ petitions. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent herein does not come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum, Ongole as confirmed by the State Forum is illegal and as a result, enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- is without any valid reasons. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that in pursuance of the settlement arrived at, between the Corporation and the respondent, the entire amount has been paid by the respondent within time and there was no understanding or agreement with regard to payment of watch and ward expenses and, therefore, retaining the documents by the Corporation is nothing but deficiency in service, and that the State Forum rightly enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The factual matrix is not in serious dispute. As per the one time settlement, the respondent herein paid a total amount of Rs.4,15,000/-, as against the total outstanding balance of Rs.7,53,988/- as on 31.10.2000. The respondent paid Rs.4,15,000/- on 31.03.2001 and took possession of the machinery on 03.04.2001. The keys of the premises, which was sealed and locked by the Corporation, have been handed over to the respondent herein. Thereafter, the Corporation did not return the documents, which were pledged at the time of taking loan. The reason given by the Corporation is that the respondent herein has to pay Rs.11,783/- and interest thereon towards the watchmen charges and incidental charges. But that is not the subject matter of the agreement. If there is any clause in one time settlement, whereunder the respondent undertook to pay the watch and ward charges, then certainly the respondent is bound to pay that amount. In the absence of any agreement or understanding that the respondent has to pay the said amount, the Corporation is not entitled to keep the documents with them. In pursuance of the one time settlement, the corporation is bound to return the documents to the respondent, but without there being any justifiable cause or reason the Corporation kept the documents with it. In spite of giving notice by the respondent to the Corporation, the Corporation has not returned the documents and, therefore, that would have caused mental agony. Hence, the respondent was forced to raise consumer dispute before the District Forum. The said Forum after considering the material on record rightly awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony, suffered by the respondent herein. But without there being any reasons, simply the State Forum enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. There cannot be any dispute that a right to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial or quasi-judicial system. The aggrieved party must know for what reason the case went against him. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the enhancement of the compensation by the State Commission is not proper and in the facts and circumstances of the case, enhancement without there being any justifiable cause or reason is unsustainable. 11. With regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the Forum has no jurisdiction as keeping documents is not a deficiency in service, we are fortified by the decision reported in Dosan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. V. United Bank of India [1], wherein it was held that the Bank’s refusal to return the title deeds after receiving the whole amount of loan, or to return the pledged articles after full repayment of loan on the ground that some amount was due against another cash credit account, was held to be deficiency in service. 12. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.10.2006 passed by the State Commission in F.A.No.346 of 2004 is confirmed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission in F.A.No.790 of 2004 is liable to be set aside, confirming the order passed by the District Forum in C.D.No.174 of 2001. 13. Accordingly, W.P.No.3468 of 2007 is partly allowed and W.P.No.8254 of 2007 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) _______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 06.11.2009. Lmv [1] 2003(1) CPJ 214(NC)