BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A. No.38 OF 2023 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.79/2021 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD Between:

The Secunderabad Co-op. Urban Bank Limited, Rep. by it’s Branch Manager, D.No.1-4-909, Main Road, Mushirabad, Hyderabad -500080.

………..Appellant/ Opposite Party And:

Mumtaz Begum, W/o Syed Mustafa, Aged about 62 years, Occ.: Household, R/o 11-3-354/36, Parsigutta, Secunderabad.

……..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s. Mir Masood Khan Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Party-in-Person QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

WEDNESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed U/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-III, Hyderabad, dated 07.11.2022 in CC 79/2021 where under the opposite party was directed to handover the re-created copy of title deed No.1986/1985 along with certified copy to the complainant with immediate effect; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation due to causing mental agony for not providing original title deed and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Time for compliance was 45 days from the date of receiving copy of this order.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant obtained loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from opposite party vide loan Account No.OSL 120 and deposited a registered document bearing No.1986 of 1995 and also executed a registered indenture styled as deposit of title deeds vide document No.1476/2010 beside SRO Marredpally; that the entire loan was cleared and the opposite party executed conveyance deed vide document No.1597/2019 dated 10.05.2019 and she was asked to visit the bank to collect the original document and to complete the formalities; that she went to the Bank and her signatures were obtained on some forms and blank papers but the original document was not returned on the ground that it is mis-placed; that several times the complainant approached opposite parties and always the opposite party gave evasive replies; that ultimately the opposite party informed that the previous Bank employee committed fraud and might have misused the document; that the complainant got issued a legal notice on 07.12.2020 with a demand to return the original document, for compensation etc.; that a reply was given by the opposite party dated 16.12.2020 informing that the complainant is not a customer as per their records.; hence, the complaint claiming return of original document, compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for causing mental agony; Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency of service and for costs.

3. The brief averments of the counter affidavit of Opposite Party is that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that complainant is put to strict proof of all the averments made in the complaint, except, those that are admitted; that the complainant not obtained any loan at all as per their records; that mere execution of conveyance deed, dated 10.05.2019 will not suffice to establish, the complainant as borrower; that loan was sanctioned to one Mr. Sayed Ahmed who is the son of complainant and he subsequently paid the loan amount; that then conveyance deed was executed by the opposite party on 10.05.2019 and as per the contents of para 4 in page 2 of the re-conveyance deed, shows delivery of all the original documents original; that a complainant and her son gave legal notice for which a suitable reply was given stating that the complainant is no the borrower; that complainant’s son issued a legal notice on 25.03.2021, which reveals that he had taken the loan by mortgaging the property of his mother and also admitted receipt of original; that on 09.05.2019 Mr.Syed Ahmed acknowledged the receipt of original ; that the c