Dtd.02.08.2024                                            A/389/2013

O R D E R

       BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.12.02.2013 passed in CC/366/2011 on the file of Mysuru District Forum. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard. Now, the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be whether the impugned order dtd.12.02.2013 passed in CC/366/2011 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo ?
3. One Mr.B.S.Thontadarya has raised consumer complaint to direct OP to discharge all his liability created on the documents of his land bearing S.No.135 of Adaganahally as per the memorandum of deposit of title deeds dtd.25.03.2009 and further sought for release of the working capital of Rs.95,000/- as per the loan sanction letter dtd.25.03.2009 and to pay the compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and monetary loss. This complaint was contested by the OP contending that Complainant availed term loan of Rs.8,55,000/- for the purpose to set up brick industry and his loan was considered as non-performing assets (NPA) as on 20.07.2011. He was in arrears of Rs.2,30,333/- and in such circumstances he had raised consumer complaint without furnishing the documents to show that such arrears due to the OP is already paid or discharged as the case may be. In such circumstances, though the District Forum in para 10 rightly held, when the Complainant is still due cannot seek directions against OP for release of working capital loan of Rs.95,000/- but committed grave error in awarding some amount of compensation for the Deficiency in service on the part of OP in demanding additional security for the release of working capital loan of Rs.95,000/- without considering the fact that Complainant was still due certain amount and unnoticed the fact that his loan account was considered as NPA. In such circumstances, for the grounds set out in the appeal memo, we are of view impugned order does call for interference. Hence proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently set aside the order dtd.12.02.2013 passed in CC/366/2011 on the file of Mysuru District Forum and as a result dismissed CC/366/2011 with no order as to cost.     
4. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.
5. Return the LCR to the District Commission.
6. Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

   Lady Member                                Judicial Member               

*NS*