ORDER V.K. Agrawal, President : This appeal, under section 15 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986, directed against the order dated 29-11-1999 in complaint no. 194/99 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, (hereafter referred to as 'District Forum: for short) dismissing the complaint/of the appellant herein. 1. Undisputedly, the complainant appellant obtained a loan of Rs. 40,000/- from respondent no. 2 through respondent no. 1 Sunder Nagar Grah Ninnan Society. It is also not in dispute that the complainant appellant deposited documents of title of his property situated at Rajatalab (Rajaralao), Raipur, by way of security to the said loan. 2. The grievance of complainant as raised in the complaint was that though he had repaid the loan, yet the documents of title of his Rajatalab (Rajaralao) property have not been returned to him by the respondents. 3. The respondent no. 1 resisted the complaint. According to the written version of respondent no. I, the document of title of complainant/ appellant was not deposited with respondent no. 1 and in fact the said documents were deposited with respondent no. 2. It was, therefore, averred that the respondent no. 1 was not liable to return the documents as it was never deposited with it. 4. The respondent no. 2 did not file any written version. However, affidavit of A.E. Gabriel, Regional Officer of the respondent no. 2 has been filed in which it was stated that as the loan of Rs. 40,000/- was not repaid by the complainant and that an amount of Rs. 1,36,2011- was due till 06-081999; hence the document was not returned to the complainant. The copies of statement of account of the complainant appellant was also filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 5. The District Forum in the impugned order held that since there was outstanding dues against the loan taken by the complainant, the document of title deposited by way of security could not be returned to him. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. 6. In this appeal none appeared for the respondents. The son of the complainant appeared and stated that complainant himself was unable to attend the hearing in this appeal, as he was seriously ill. He was heard regarding the appeal. Records of the District Forum and the appeal was perused. 7. There is no dispute that the loan was taken by the complainant appellant from respondent no. The son of the complainant appeared and stated that complainant himself was unable to attend the hearing in this appeal, as he was seriously ill. He was heard regarding the appeal. Records of the District Forum and the appeal was perused. 7. There is no dispute that the loan was taken by the complainant appellant from respondent no. 2 through respondent no. 1 Society. It appears that complainant/appellant has repaid the whole amount of loan, and respondent no. 1 Society has also issued him a 'no due certificate', copy of which is on the record of the District Forum. According to the said certificate dated 14-06-95, the whole of the amount of loan was repaid by the complainant/appellant and no dues are outstanding against him. It also appears that the complainant/appellant had approached and filed a petition before the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Raipur which was registered as case no. 64-134/2000. The Deputy Registrar by his order dated 31-02-02 has allowed the complainant's petition and directed that document of title deposited be returned to him. The respondent no. 2 herein preferred an appeal against the said order before the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Raipur which was registered as appeal no. 78, 39/R/2002 by order dated 01-07-03 in the said appeal, the Registrar has affirmed the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 20-04-02 and dismissed the appeal. 8. It is therefore, clear that the competent authority has adjudicated the matter in favour of the complainant/appellant and has directed the respondent no. 2 to return the title deeds deposited by the complainant/ appellant. The son of the complainant however, has stated in this appeal, that despite the order as above and despite persistent efforts on his part and by the complainant the documents have still not been returned to the complainant by respondent no. 2. It would appear from the material on record and as also from the orders of the Deputy Registrar and Registrar Co-operative Societies that the whole amount of loan has been repaid by the complainant to respondent no. 1. However, there appears to be inter-se dispute between the respondents, as probably the amount of loan has not been deposited by respondent no. 1 with respondent no. 2. However complainant/appellant cannot be blamed for the above dispute between the respondents, and cannot be made to suffer. It is regrettable that respondent no. 1. However, there appears to be inter-se dispute between the respondents, as probably the amount of loan has not been deposited by respondent no. 1 with respondent no. 2. However complainant/appellant cannot be blamed for the above dispute between the respondents, and cannot be made to suffer. It is regrettable that respondent no. 2 did not obey the order of competent authority, viz. The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, and did not return the documents of title to the appellant. Non return of the documents of title to the complainant even after repayment of loan by complainant/appellant and despite order of the competent authority, clearly indicates inaction on the part of Respdt. No.2. However, it appears that inaction as above has resulted due to dispute as noticed above between the respondents, as respdt,. No. 1 did not duly remit the amount of loan to respondent No.2 Had the respondent No. 1 remitted the amount paid by the appellant to it in respondent of his loan, to respondent No 2, the situation as above may not have cropped up Clearly therefore, both the respondents are liable for non-compliance of the order of the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies which amounts to deficiency in service by them. In view of the above, in our considered opinion it would be just and proper to direct the_ respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service on their part as above vis-a-vis the complainant. The liability of the respondents to pay compensation as above would be joint and several. 9. The appeal is therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the respondents shall jointly and severally pay compensation or Rs. 10.000/- to the complainant/appellant with interest thereon @ 10% p.a. from the date of the complainant till payment within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing compliance they will be required to pay interest on the amount of compensation as above @ 15% p.a. The respondents shall bear their own cost and shall pay that of the complainant/appellant, which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. Appeal Allowed.