ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

1. This Appeal is filed U/s.15 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short Cp Act) by the Appeilant challenging the order dated:24.08.2019 passed in CC/t4/201g on the file of Shivamogga District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the District Commission).

2. The Appeltant was the Opposite party (in short OP) and Respondent was the Complainant before the District Commission. The Rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3. The Brief facts of the case are that; The Complainant is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.g1 measuring 1 acre 36 guntas situated at Kannur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk. Op is a Co_operative Society. On 18.06.2014, the Complainant has become a share holder in Op society by paying a sum of Rs.1,000/_ and his share number is 1351 with Khatha pan No.1362. On 20.05.2014 he has approached Op to avait loan of Rs.80,000/- for growing Areca and Banana in his land. OP has directed to bring NOC from other local banks and to deposit his property documents as security. Accordingly, the Complainant has produced NOC as well as mortgaged his agricultural land mentioned above by executing a registered document on 27.05.2014. The said mortgage has been entered in all the revenue records. But Op has not sanctioned the loan. In the year 20L5, again he obtained NOCs, but loan was not sanctioned. When the Complainant has approached other banks for loan, they asked to cancel the mortgage executed in favour of Op society. Ops society neither sanctioned the loan nor cancelled the mortgage, thereby he has caused notice on 2i.tl.2}l7. Op has sent untenable reply on 07.12.2017 stating that loan of Rs.9,000/- was already sanctioned which was not at all received by the Complainant. Hence alleging deficiency in service, complaint is filed.

4. Before the District Commission, the Op has opposed the complaint by filing version. It has admitted that Complainant is a share holder of the society. It has never promised him to sanction loan of Rs.80,000/-. It has never directed to obtain NOC from other banks. The Complainant has not mortgaged the property to the Op society, but only created charge in respect of his property in favour of OP society. As per Rule, Op society has recommended to sanction loan of Rs.38,000/-. The field officer has fixed it to Rs.18,000/-, whereas Shimogga DCC bank has approved loan of Rs.9,000/- and the same was intimated to Complainant to avail the said amount. It has further contended that, the Complainant has become the surety for the loan of Rs.10,000/- availed by one Sri.G.N.Parameshwra who is co-member of the society. When Sri.G.N.Parameshwra has become defaulter, the matter brought before Arbitrator who has passed the award in favour of the society. Hence, request made by the Complainant for issuance of clearance certificate was held up by the OP society until the said Sri.G.N.Parameshwra repays the award. If the Complainant repays the award passed against Sri.G.N.Parameshwra, it is ready to issue clearance certificate. Thereby, there is no deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5. Before the District Commission, the Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as PW-1 and marked 19 documents as Ex-P1 to P19. On behalf of OP, CEO of OP has affidavit evidence as RW-1 and Ex-R1 to R7 are came to be marked.

6. The District Commission after hearing both sides allowed the complaint in part and directed OP to take immediate steps to cancel the registration of the charge created by the Complainant in respect of his agricultural land and to release his property free from all encumbrances in favour of the Complainant; to return all the documents; to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards loss; to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony; to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost. Aggrieved by the same, OP has preferred this ap