KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
K.B. Sangannanavar, Judicial Member and
M. Divyashree, Lady Member
The Branch Manager
Central Bank of India – Appellant
versus
Umesh S/o Prabhu – Respondent
Appeal No.1343 of 2019
Decided on 1.2.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Appeal – Services – Banking – Loan – Return of Original Documents – The Commission has benefit to look into Re-conveyance Deed of Mortgage, wherein could see not only the agricultural development loan of Rs.5,30,000/-, but also the crop loan of Rs.1,20,000/-, were discharged together with interest. In such circumstances, considering the date of execution of Redemption deed, OP bank has no option except to return the documents withheld by them which were deposited at the time of availing mortgage loan and to issue NDC in favor of mortgager, since they have shown such loan was discharged on 23.12.2009 – It is true, OP is one of the nationalized banks and the money held by said bank is public money. If Complainant and his father are still due, are to know, how much they have due as on the date of Redemption of mortgage on 19.06.2010. In such circumstances, when OP bank failed to place any materials on record to substantiate that Complainant and his father are still due certain amounts is nothing but rendered deficiency of services, as such, the Forum below has to be held right in allowing the complaint, however awarding Rs.30,000/- as compensation and litigation cost with interest at 8% p.a. has to be held on higher side is hereby reduced to Rs.15,000/- together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. Accordingly, impugned order stands modified and disposed of the appeal. [Paras 10 and 11].
Result: Appeal disposed off.
ORDER
K.B. Sangannanavar, Pri. Dist & Session Judge (R) - Judicial Member—This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.20.08.2019 passed in CC/62/2018 on the file of Raichuru District Commission. (Parties to this appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the Forum below).
2. The Commission examined the grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsel on record and now, to examine, whether the impugned order passed by the Forum below in CC/62/2018 dtd.20.08.2019 call for interference of this Commission?
3. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant would be, father of complainant by name Prabhu S/o Parvata reddy and he availed bank loan from OP Bank, for development of their lands. They also availed crop loan. They have availed loan of Rs.5,30,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/- respectively from the OP bank. The loan was on mortgage of their lands bearing sy.no.68/7 measuring 9 acres 37 guntas, sy.no.69/7/A measuring 3 acres 6 guntas, sy.no.68/A measuring 4 acres 14 guntas situated at Jabalpur village, Manvi taluk, Raichur district. This mortgaged deed was registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar at Manvi on 11.11.2003. It was the case of Complainant have paid entire loan amount along with interest and they have discharged loan amount and as a result OP Bank executed Re-conveyance Deed of Mortgage on 19.06.2010 and even after redemption of mortgage deed, OP bank failed to issue No Due Certificate (NDC) and failed to return documents kept in their custody on one or the other pretext. When he approached the OP Bank in the month of January 2016, informed we are still due to the tune of Rs.90,000/-, which according to the Complainant amounts to unfair trade practice, since entire loan was discharged on 23.12.2009 and OP had executed Reconveyance Deed of Mortgage on 19.06.2010.
4. The complainant had raised consumer complaint before the Forum below alleging deficiency of service. The OP Bank had contested the complaint, contending firstly that complaint filed after lapse of 6 years 87 days of the alleged deficiency of service could not be admit in view of S.24A of CPA 1986 and secondly as the Complainant is still due certain amount to OP Bank, question of issue of NDC and return of documents does not arise at all. In other words denied the allegations as to rendering any deficiency in service. Thirdly the Complainant has no cause of action to raise consumer complaint before the Forum.
5. In view of rival contentions of the parties to the case, Forum below held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence and documents from parties to the complaint case, held Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed and directed OP to issue NDC in respect of 2 loan accounts of the Complainant and to return the original documents submitted by the Complainant at the time of execution of Mortgage deed within one month without insisting further payment towards the alleged loan dues and directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation. It is this order being assailed in this appeal contending that the Forum below failed to appreciate the materials on record, since entertained a time barred complaint contrary to the provisions of Sec.24A of CPA 1986. The Forum below failed to appreciate that the loan was availed by the Complainant and his father and both are have jointly mortgaged the properties, yet the Complainant alone has filed the complaint which is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the impugned order is liable to be set aside as Forum below committed grave error in directing OP to return documents without insisting Complainant to pay alleged loan dues and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation along with interest at 8% p.a.
6. It is not in dispute that Mr.Umesh S/o Prabhu and his father Mr.Prabhu availed bank loan from OP for development of lands and for the purpose to grow crops in
Return of Documents – OP bank has no option except to return the documents withheld by them which were deposited at the time of availing mortgage loan.
Consumer Dispute – By no stretch of imagination, the receipt of amount more than Rs.20,000/- without cheque is not relevant issue for adjudication of the consumer disputes between the respondent and ....
Legal Title - The legal title of the complainant does stand compromised on account of the loss of the original documents by opposite party 1.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.