ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri R.S. Awasthi, Member :_ 1. This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the act) directed against the order passed by the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum in complaint No. 185/2005. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint and advised the parties to approach the civil court as the complaint relates to complicated questions. 2. Complainant has averred that he obtained a housing loan of Rs. 80,000/. in 3 instalments during the years 1982 and 1983 from the OP-1 through OP-2 and has been repaying loan instalments. On 10/9/98, the OP.2 informed the complainant through letter no. 212/98 that an amount of Rs. 79,953/- is out standing and demanded payment of the same. Complainant paid the said amount to the OP-2 under receipt no. 496 on 10/9/98. A request was made to the OP-2 on 5l/99 through a written letter to return the title deeds and issue a no due certificate but nothing came out. 3. Complainant has prayed for direction to the OPs to issue no dues certificate, return the title deeds pledged for securing the loan and compensation of Rs. 50,000/. for mental agony. 4. In reply on behalf of the OP-I, it is admitted that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 80,000/- from the OP-I and that a demand notice for payment of Rs. 4, 20,860/- towards interest, principal and penal interest was issued to the complainant. It is stated that the title deeds of the complainant could not be returned to the complainant for want of payment of loan due and there is no deficiency on their part. It is also submitted the consumer for a have no jurisdiction in the matter as this matter falls under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Dismissal of the complaint with cost was prayed. None appeared on behalf of the OP-2 nor was any reply filed on their behalf despite notice. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum has erred in holding that-the dispute falls under the Transfer of Property Act and District Forum has no jurisdiction. It was also submitted that even if it is assumed that the complainant has repaid the loan to the OP-2, OP-2 being the complainant's agent such payment can not be considered as payment to OP-1. 6. It was also submitted that even if it is assumed that the complainant has repaid the loan to the OP-2, OP-2 being the complainant's agent such payment can not be considered as payment to OP-1. 6. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy including matter relating to financing of loans. It was further submitted that the question to be adjudicated was whether the OP were deficient in service with reference to the loan advanced. Reference was also made to the view taken by this commission in the matter of Bhaskar Vasant Naolekar Vs. Lokmanya Sahkari Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit (Appeal No. 57/2005) decided on 27/01/2006. It was also submitted that the OP-2 was the agent of the 'OP-I as per the terms of the mortgage deed. 7. Learned counsel for the OP.1 defended the impugned order stating that the matter involved complicated questions of fact and law and can not be decided in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Questions for adjudication are: i. Whether the District Forum has jurisdiction to decide the matter under the Act. Indisputably, the matter relates to the services relating to loan amount advanced for construction of a house and repayment thereof. Section 2(0) of the act includes services relating to financing of loans. It is also provided in Section 3 of the act that it aims to provide an additional remedy in the matters relating to deficiency in service. Learned counsel for the respondent-I referred to the case law by the National Commission in the matter of Jay shree Insulators Vs. West Bengal Electricity Board. The controversy in the said case law related to the assessment of the damages involving calculations relating to erection of dedicated electric line of 33KV, loss of production and bank guarantee. In the present matter, no such calculation or assessment is required. Therefore, the said citation does not assist the respondent-I. ii. Whether the Complaint has discharged his liability regarding the repayment of loans as per the arrangement with the respondents 1 and 2. 8. It was stated that the documents relating to the sanction of loan to the complainant are not available but copies of Mortgage Deed, Assignment Deed, relating to other set of borrower-member's of the OP-2 from the OP-1 and rules relating to housing loans have been filed by OP/Respondent-1. 8. It was stated that the documents relating to the sanction of loan to the complainant are not available but copies of Mortgage Deed, Assignment Deed, relating to other set of borrower-member's of the OP-2 from the OP-1 and rules relating to housing loans have been filed by OP/Respondent-1. Copy of Loan Account of the complainant has also been Filed. 9. It is not in dispute that the OP-2 is the primary society which has allotted the residential plots to its members and the OP-1 is the State Level Apex body providing loans. 10. Copies of rules relating to housing loan by the OP-1 have also been filed. Rule 3(A) of the said rules lays down that the members of the primary society desirous of obtaining housing loan are required to mortgage the residential plots allotted to them in favour of the primary society. Such loans can be granted to a group of minimum 5 members. As per rule 2(3) such plots will be assigned by the primary society to the apex body for security of loan. Rule 14 authorizes the primary societies to collect interest at 0.70 per cent over and above the rates payable to the apex body. 11. Copy of assignment deed on record is an agreement between. The College Ward Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., (Mortgagor-primary society); Madhya Pradesh Slate Cooperative Housing Finance Society Ltd. (Mortgagee- the apex body). Said deed appears to be duly executed by the President of the OP-2 and the Regional Officer of the OP-1. Clause 24 of the said Assignment deed runs as under: "The Mortgagor hereby authorizes the mortgagee institute on its behalf whenever found essential legal proceedings, for the recovery of any dues against the concerned individual members of the mortgagor for the loan obtained by them through the mortgagor Society form the Mortgagee who is its turn shall be entitled to recover from individual members. The mortgagor hereby undertakes to reimburse all the expenses that will be incurred in connection, with the legal proceedings and beings himself to furnish relevant records in that connection." 12. From a plain reading of the said clause reveals, that the instalments for repayment of loans were to be collected by the primary society. An additional interest to the maximum of 0.70 percent was payable to the primary society towards collection charges of the loan instalments. From a plain reading of the said clause reveals, that the instalments for repayment of loans were to be collected by the primary society. An additional interest to the maximum of 0.70 percent was payable to the primary society towards collection charges of the loan instalments. The primary society was entitled to reimburse expenses incurred in connection with legal proceedings for recovery of loans. 13. Thus, it is clear that the repayment of loans was to be made to the primary society (OP2 in the present matter) and the primary society, OP-2 was expected to further pay it to the apex body, OP-I. It is also evident that the OP-2 was to function as OP-1's agent for recovery of loans advanced and was to receive 0.70% of interest amount as commission. Annexure-l is a (copy of the notice dated 10/09/98 issued by the OP-2) demanding outstanding loan of Rs. 79,953-80. As per annexure-2, (money receipt no. 436/48 dated 10-9-98 of the OP-1) the entire amount demanded appears to have been paid directly to the OP-1. 14. It is nobody's case that the complainant has not paid any instalments to the OP-2. Notice was sent by the Complainant to the OP 1 and 2 clearly mention that has been repaying all loan instalments to the OP-2 regularly. The OP-2 has not cared to reply to the notice and OP-1 has said nothing in this regard in its reply dated 28/7/05. 15. Thus, in our opinion the Complainant has fulfilled his part of the arrangement under the terms of loan by repaying it properly: The OP-I does not appear to be entitled to demand any money whatsoever from the complainant merely because the amount collected by OP-2 was not passed on to it despite the terms of the assignment deed. Complainant can in no way be blamed for any default on the part ofOP-2 who was the agent authorized by OP-1 to collect and recover the loan amount for a commission of 0.70 per cent of the loan. 16. In view of the above discussion we are convinced that the OPs are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service by refusing to return the title deeds and release the property and demand further payment. Therefore, the OPs are directed to release the said property and in return the title deeds to the complainant within one month of this order. Therefore, the OPs are directed to release the said property and in return the title deeds to the complainant within one month of this order. OPs are also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for inconvenience and harassment to the Complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint. OPs shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the complainant including the cost of appeal to the complaint. Appeal Allowed.