ING Vysya Bank
IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM U/C.P.ACT, 1986 AT NIZAMABAD.
Quorum : Sri P.Raghavender, B.Sc., LL.B., .PRESIDENT
Sri.Y. Krishna, M.Com., . MEMBER.
Smt K. Vinayakumari, M.A., LL.B., MEMBER.
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2009
Date of filing of complaint : 15-02-2008
Date of Order : 20-03-2009
C.C. NO. 52 OF 2008
Smt.Vanaparthi Godavari W/o V.Venkataiah, aged 48 years, Housewife, R/o Flat No.103, 2nd Floor, Sri Sai Nilayam Apartments, Namdevwada, Nizamabad.
The ING Vysya Bank Ltd., (formerly known as Vysya Bank) Devi Road, Nizamabad, represented through its Branch Manager.
:: O R D E R ::
(ORAL ORDER BY Smt.K.VINAYA KUMARI, MEMBER)
1. THIS IS A COMPLAINT FILED U/SEC.12 OF C.P.ACT, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are:
3. The complainant a house wife and a resident of Nizamabad is the owner of Plot No.21, Sy.No.34 situated at Mubaraknagar Village.
The husband of the complainant without the knowledge of his wife mortgaged the said plot with opposite party towards security for the repayment of the loan amount he obtained for Unique Electronics. The staff of the opposite party also obtained the signatures of the complainant on several blank papers and unfilled proforma papers misrepresenting the facts and being uneducated the complainant has signed on blank papers.
Thought the Opposite Party promised to return the orignal plot documents once the loan amount is re-paid did not do so and dodged the matter one are pretext on another. Hence gave legal notice to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party in their reply notice stated that as the complainant stood as guarantor to other loan pertain to Telangana Seeds Private Ltd., the papers could not be returned. The complainant issued notice to the Opposite Party on 13-08-2007 denying all the allegations of the Opposite Party.
The acts of the Opposite Party in not returning the original documents immediately after repayment of loan pertaining to M/s Unique Electronics amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and therefore prayed to direct the Opposite Party to return the original document bearing No.1957/86 dated 25-03-1986 in respect of plot No.21 measuring 303 Sq.Yards situated at Mubaraknagar Village, Nizamabad district, and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony along with costs of the complaint.
4. The Opposite Party filed counter materially contending that the husband of the complainant Sri V.Venkataiah approached them for credit facility for business purpose. The Opposite Party sanctioned the credit facility against the security of the property bearing plot No.21, situated at Mubarak Nagar in pursuance of the sanction, the complainant deposited the title deeds of the property with the Opposite Party. Further the Opposite Party also sanctioned credit facility to the M/s Telangana Seeds Company on the request of the complainant husband who is the director of the Company against the personal guarantee of all the partners in the firm. The complainant is also one of the partner of the company.
In pursuance of the sanction all the partners of M/s Telangana Seeds conditioning company have jointly created mortgage by deposit of title deeds over the property belonging to the firm and also executed personal guarantees in their individual capacity.
Even though the outstanding loan paid towards M/s Unique Electronics was paid by the complainant husband original documents were not released since M/s Telangana Seeds Company Pvt. Ltd. is due to pay amount to the bank as the liability of the complainant as a guarantor to the said loan is subsisting. The Opposite Party bank in exercise of powers conferred under bankers general lien is entitled to withhold the title deeds pertaining to the property of the complainant as security for repayment of the amount outstanding in loan account of M/s Telangana Seeds Company Pvt. Ltd.
Therefore, the claim of the complainant for return of the title deeds is invalid and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint against them with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity.
5. During the enquiry both parties lead their evidence by filing their affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents are marked on behalf of the complainant, Ex.B1 document marked on behalf of Opposite Party.
6. Heard arguments of both side advocates.
7. The points for consideration are :
1)[FONT="] [/FONT]Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party to the complainant ?
2)[FONT="] [/FONT]Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for ?
8. POINT No.1 :- The admitted undisputed proven facts as per complaint, counter, evidence adduced on both side are the complainant husband deposited title deeds of the property bearing No.21, in Sy. No.34 situated at Mubarak Nagar with the Opposite Party as security for the repayment of credit facility given by Opposite Party for business purpose and is also admitted that the complainant husband totally repaid the loan amount vide the voucher dated 20-05-2000 (Ex.A1).
The point of dispute is the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party in retaining the title deeds of the property even after total repayment of loan pertaining to M/s Unique Electronics towards which credit facility was given and in evidence produced affidavit of complainant.
The Opposite Party counters the said allegation and contended that the complainant stood as personal guarantor to the loan sanctioned to M/s Telangana Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Company and executed all the required documents in favour of the Bank including the guarantor agreement dated 03-02-1998. The Opposite Party in exercise of powers conferred under Bankers general lien is entitled to withhold the title deeds pertaining to the complainant and in evidence produced Ex.B1 document. As there is no deficiency and unfair trade practice on their part to the complainant prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.
Heard arguments of both side Advocates and perused the material on record.
It is clear from Ex.A5 that the complainant created mortgage on the property bearing plot No.1 in Mubarak Nagar to secure the loan sanctioned by the bank to M/s Unique Electronics.
Ex.A1, A3 clearly go to proof that the entire outstanding loan amount under O.D. facility amounting to Rs.2,14,367/- in the name of Unique Electronics was cleared by the complainant husband.
The Ex.B1 produced as evidence by the Opposite Party only go to show that the complainant is one of the borrower and stood as personal guarantor for the loan amount taken towards M/s Telangana Seed Company.
The Opposite Party though contended that the complainant mortgaged her property towards security loan to M/s Talangana Seed Company have not produced the said documents.
Keeping in view of the National Commission judgement reported in 1992 (2) CPR (8) (NC) in State Bank of India and others V/s Anand Mohan Shah, material on record and the pleadings put forward we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party in retaining the title deeds of property even after repayment entire amount of loan towards which the documents were kept as security.
Accordingly this pint goes in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party.
9. POINT No.2 :- In view of our findings on the foregoing pint No.1 and the reasons mentioned there in we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the following reliefs. The Opposite Party is directed to return original documents of plot No.21 in Sy.No.34, situated at Mubarak Nagar, Nizamabad immediately to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony along with Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint.
10. IN THE RESULT, the complaint is allowed partly as under:
The Opposite Party is directed to:
1)[FONT="] [/FONT]Return original document bearing No.1957/86 dated 25-03-1986 in respect of plot No.21 in Sy.No.34 measuring 303.33 Square yards, situated at Mubarak Nagar Village, Nizamabad.
2)[FONT="] [/FONT]To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony.
3)[FONT="] [/FONT]And also to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint.
4)[FONT="] [/FONT]Time one month to comply from the date of receipt of order copy.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Lady Member in Open Forum on this the 20th day of March 2009.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
(Witnesses examined on behalf of)
Affidavit of Complainant Counter affidavit of Opposite Party
filed as evidence filed as evidence
:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::
Photostat copy of Loan account receipt issued by The Vysya Bank Limited for Rs.5,06,475/- and Rs.2,14,367/- in the name of Opposite Party.
Copy of Legal Notice Dt.13-08-2007 addressed to The Manager, Vysya Bank Ltd., Nizamabad by the counsel for the complainant.
Original register post receipt bearing No.4638 addressed to The Manager, ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Nizamabad.
Original postal acknowledgement duly served on The Manager, ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Nizamabad.
Original reply to Legal notice addressed to counsel for complainant issued by The Manager, ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Nizamabad.
For the Opposite Party:-
Photostat copy of Translation certificate in the name of complainant issued by Hranch Head, ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Nizamabad.