M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.456 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 13.02.2017 passed in Case.No.154/2016 by District Commission, Gwalior)

YADAV CHANDRA SHARMA R/O RAJA GAS GODAM ROAD, GOL PAHADIYA. A.B.ROAD, LASHKAR, GWALIOR. … APPELLANT.

Versus .

STATE BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH TANSEN NAGAR, HAZEERA, DISTT. GWALIOR. .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri P.K. Gupta and Shri Yash Vidhyarthi, learned counsel for respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on .03.2026)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the complainant / appellant directed against the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no. 154/2016, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the him. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a housing loan was obtained by the complainant / appellant form the opposite party / respondent – State Bank of India (hereinafter referred as ‘Bank’) bearing loan account no.53006391674. On 22.06.2012 the complainant / appellant executed a registered sale deed for the said property in favour of Rakesh Kumar Verma and Smt.Vandana Verma. Following the execution of sale deed the purchaser Rakesh Kumar Verma in collusion with the Bank deposited funds into the complainant / appellant’s loan account through various cheques. It is alleged that the Bank neither adjusted these deposited funds against the loan account nor informed the complainant about the same. On complainant / appellant’s request for No Objection Certificate (NOC) regarding the loan on 21.03.2016, the Bank informed him that the account was closed on 07.08.2013 and the NOC was issued on 12.08.2013. The Bank despite repeated assurances failed to return the original sale deed to the complainant. Hence the complainant after issuing legal notice against the Bank on 23.03.2016 filed complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The Bank resisted the complaint on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose on 12.08.2013 and is not maintainable since the complainant being a borrower does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is alleged that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the agreement by transferring the mortgaged property to a third party without clearing the outstanding dues or obtaining NOC. Further the loan account was fully settled and closed via cheque on 07.08.2012 and the original title deeds were lawfully handed over to the joint account holder and wife of the complainant – Smt.Kusum Sharma. It is stated that the complaint was filed prematurely as the complainant failed to wait for a response from the Bank to the legal notice. Therefore, it is requested that the complaint be dismissed.

4. Heard.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant / appellant argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is contrary to the facts on record and is liable to be set aside. The evidence produced before the District Commission proves that the complainant / appellant obtained loan from the Bank and maintained regular repayments. Subsequently the property was sold to one Rakesh Kumar Verma. Learned counsel stated that the Bank colluded with the third party purchaser and deposited the cheques related to purchased property into appellant’s account. Upon learning of these deposits, the appellant realized that a surplus amount remained in the loan account, even after its closure. Despite loan being settled, the Bank withheld the original title deed and the surplus funds. He further argued that the cause of action is continuous as they discovered