BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.402/2012 against C.C.No.367/2010, Dist. Forum-1,Visakhapatnam.
Between:
M/s. Indira Enterprises, Srikakulam represented,
by its Managing Partner Baratam Venkata Rao,
S/o. late Samba Murthy,Hindu, aged about 51 years,
Business, Market, Srikakualam. … Appellant/
Complainant
And
1.The I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., Mumbai,
Represented by its Manager,
Empire Complex, 2nd Floor, 414,
Sanapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W),
Mumbai – 400 013.
2. The I.C.I.C.I.Bank Ltd.,
Hyderabad, represented by its
Branch Manager, 1st Floor,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
3. The I.C.I.C.I.Bank Ltd.,
Visakhapatnam represented by its Branch Manager,
47-18, Near Satyasri Complex, Main Road,
Dwaraka Nagar,
Visakhapatnam. … Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Party in person
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. S.Nagesh Reddy
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT
And
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY,
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member).
***
The appeal is directed against the order dt.6.7.2011 of the Dist. Cons. Forum-I, Visakhapatnam, whereunder, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to return the original title deeds within 15 days, failing which, the opp.parties have to issue non tracing Certificate, regarding those documents, to the complainant within 15 days and to pay Rs.1 lakh towards compensation besides costs of Rs.3000/-.
The appellant is the complainant and the respondents herein are the opp.parties in C.C.No.367/2010. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant availed the loan facility from opposite party no.3 for an amount of Rs.36 lakhs on 4.12.2003 and Rs.20 lakhs on 8.3.2004 for its business development and deposited the original registered title deeds with the opposite parties viz. documents bearing nos. 1). 356/1989 2). 1774/1998, 3). EP.35/1998 and 4).479/2004 of the properties, as security for sanctioning of the loan. The complainant discharged entire loan amount together with interest. The opposite party no.1 acknowledged the same and issued ‘No Dues Certificate’ on 10.2.2009. The complainant sold away his properties to one Jami Bala Bhaskara Rao at lower price than the market price as the opp.parties tortured him to discharge the loan, and at the time of execution of the registration of the sale deed , the vendee paid an amount of Rs.25 lakhs by way of two DDs. to the opp.parties directly in the presence of Sub-Registrar, Srikakulam. The Vendee kept an amount of Rs.16 lakhs out of the total consideration of Rs.41 lakhs with him to pay the said amount, on handing over the original title deeds, which are in the custody of the opposite parties. The complainant borrowed the remaining amount of Rs.11 lakhs from his close friends with interest @ Rs.3 to clear of the loan due to the opposite parties, for the release of the original title deeds.
Thereafter, despite several demands made by the complainant, the opp.parties released only two documents i.e. 1.356/1989, 2.EP.1998 out of four documents and failed to release the remaining two documents, which amounts to, deficiency in service. Hence the complaint to direct the opp.parties to return the two title deeds and to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for negligence and deficiency in service.
Resisting the complaint, the opposite party no.3 filed its counter/written version and the same was adopted by opp.parties 1 and 2. The opp.parties admitted about sanctioning of loan and the deposit of the title deeds as a security for repayment of the loan. They have also admitted about the discharge of the entire loan by the complainant and issuing of ‘No Dues Certificate’ on 10.2.2009. They denied the remaining allegations made in the complaint. They pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
At the time of enquiry of the complaint, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit along with seven documents which were marked as Exs.A1 to A7 and also filed two third party affidavits. The opp.parties filed evidence affidavit, but they did not file any documents.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, in part, directing the opp.parties as aforesaid.
Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum, the complainant preferred this appeal urging that the Dist.Forum failed to consider the material on record. That the Dist. Forum failed to consider that the loan was pre-closure due to humiliation and harassment caused by the respondents/opp.parties and about selling of the property by the appellant/complainant to clear the loan. That the Dist. Forum failed to consider to clear of the loan due, the appellant/complainant borrowed Rs.11 lakhs from third parties at higher rate of interest and that he paid an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards interest to his lenders. The appellant finally prayed for modifying of the impugned order, granting compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest @ 36% from the date of discharge of the loan.
We heard the appellant in person and also the counsel for the respondents. We perused the material on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
The fact that the complainant availed loan of Rs.36 lakhs from the opp.parties and mortgaged the immovable property by way of depositing the original title deeds of the same property with the opp.parties. It is also an admitted fact, that the complainant discharged entire loan amount along with interest, as is evident from Ex.A1 ‘No Dues Certificate’ dt. 10.2.2009. The respondents/opp.parties have admitted that they have not returned the original title deeds pertaining to the immovable property mortgaged and contended that despite taking necessary measures, the original title deeds were misplaced at their office and inspite of best efforts put in by them, the said documents could not be traced out. From this admission, there is no doubt, that the opp.parties are negligent in keeping the title deeds safely. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.
The appellant/complainant might have sold away his property, in order to discharge the loan due to the opposite party. Except the interested averments in the complaint and in his evidence affidavit , the complainant did not adduce any evidence to show that he sold away his properties at a lower price than the market price and also borrowed an amount of Rs.11 lakhs from third parties, at higher rate of interest and paid huge amount towards interest. The appellant/complainant did not place any evidence on record to justify his claim for Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation. Therefore, we do not find any grounds to enhance the compensation amount of Rs.1 lakh awarded by the Dist. Forum to Rs.10 lakhs as claimed by the appellant/complainant. Hence the appeal fails.
In the result , the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Pm* 8.5.2013
