BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 235/2006 against C.D. 456/2004, Dist. Forum, Guntur.  

Between:

Marriboina Malakondaiah

S/o. Kondaiah, Age: 53 years

R/o. D. No. 4-7-201

Park Centre, Koritipadu

Guntur.                                                      ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                 Complainant

                                                                    And

The Branch Manager

Canara Bank

Hindu College Compound

Guntur.                                                        ***                        Respondent/

                                                                                                 Opposite Party     

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. CH. Janaradhan Reddy

Counsel for the Resp:                                  Mr.  Srinivas Survi.

CORAM:

                          HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

                                          SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

&

                                         SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          ***

          Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

2)                 The case of the complainant in   brief is that   20 cents of dry land at Vengalayapalem was assigned by the government for the purpose of constructing a poultry farm.    Accordingly he constructed a poultry farm with the loan sanctioned by the respondent bank on depositing his D-form patta.  Later he discharged the said loan.   However D-Form patta was not returned on the ground that he stood as guarantor for two other poultry farm owners and that they failed to discharge and till they discharge their amounts it would not be returned to him.  The loan transaction took place about 20 years ago.   

In fact he learnt that the said persons had also discharged the loans.   The notices issued by the bank to those borrowers would disclose that the debt was otherwise barred by limitation and that he was entitled to return of D-form patta.  Despite registered notices issued the document was not returned, and therefore he filed the complaint for return of D-form patta besides compensation of Rs. 1 lakh or in the alternative Rs. 3 lakhs towards compensation together with costs.

3)                The bank resisted the case.   While denying each and every allegation made by the complainant it alleged that the complaint was barred by limitation.  Even according to the complainant the transaction took place in the month of April, 1979.   In fact, it requested the complainant to furnish his loan account number etc.  but the complainant failed to furnish the same.  There is  nothing in writing to show that he deposited D-form Patta and other documents.   Neither the complainant nor other borrowers discharged the debt.  The complaint was filed after a lapse of 20 years was malafied and was not entitled to any compensation.  Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4)                 The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A14 marked, while the respondent bank got Ex. B1 marked.

5)                 The Dist. Forum after considering   the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant could not prove that he deposited his D-form patta on  borrowing  amount nor the fact that he had discharged the same.   Therefore it dismissed the complaint.

6)                 Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.    It ought to have seen that when the bank had issued notice to some of the borrowers it has categorically stated that he stood as surety for those borrowers,  besides that notice,  issued by him did not evoke any reply and therefore entitled to return of D-form patta.

7)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum under appeal is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts?

8)                 The complainant alleges that he borrowed the amount from the respondent bank for construction of his poultry farm by depositing his D-form patta in the month of April, 1979. 

9)                The complainant issued registered notices under Ex. A3 Dt. 28.7.2004, Ex. A5 Dt. 14.8.2004 and Ex. A8 Dt. 30.9.2004 requesting the bank to return his D-form patta on the ground that he discharged the amount borrowed by him by pledging D-form patta.    As long back as on 29.9.2004  the respondent bank directed the complainant under Ex. A11 (Ex. B1)  to “furnish details of loan account number, date of availment, date of closure for the purpose of verification into our records. In the absence of these details we are not able to locate the papers.”

10)              Admittedly, the complainant could not furnish the details as requested above.   Instead,  he relied a circumstance which according to him discloses that he borrowed the amount along with two others wherein he was shown as guarantor for the loan borrowed by them in the same period.  The bank issued notices in the month of February, 1987 evidenced under Exs. A1 & A2 alleging the above facts directing them to discharge the said debt.

 The contention of the appellant is that  they did not discharge.  On the other hand, he discharged his debt.   Though he discharged his debt , solely on the ground that his principal borrowers did not discharge their debts, his D-form patta was not returned.  According to him, the bank  represented that till such time the loan was not discharged by the principal borrowers, D-form patta pledged by him cannot be returned.

11)              At the outset, we may state that a perusal of registered notices do not disclose that the complainant had borrowed the loan nor pledged his D-form patta.  What all the notices allege was that  principal borrowers  borrowed the amount by creating equitable mortgage over the poultry farm.   There is no allegation that the complainant had deposited his title deed  while standing as surety for the principal borrowers.    Therefore this contention has no basis. 

12)              Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the loan that was contracted by the principal borrowers was barred by limitation and the bank was unable to recover the amount, the documents were with-held by them.   Since the debts  could not be recovered, he was entitled to return of his D-form patta.    There is no evidence to show as to the exact defence of the principal borrowers.  It is not known whether they had acknowledged the liability or  settled their claims with the bank.   Importantly he could not prove that he  borrowed the loan in the month of April, 1979.   As long back as in 2004,  the bank directed him to furnish the loan particulars.   He did not furnish the particulars.  He did not mention even  in his complaint.  In fact  waited for all these years.  He did not take immediate action. For the first time he filed the complaint in 2004, seventeen years after the notice issued by the bank under Exs. A1 & A2.  The complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.

13)              The fact remains that the complainant could not show  that he borrowed the amount by depositing his D-form patta, and that he had discharged the same and entitled to return of the document.    It is not known why he did not give reply to the notice issued by the bank under Ex. B1.  Even in the complaint no particulars of loan or the date when he deposited the document was mentioned.  By recoursing to the notices under Ex. A1 & A2 it cannot be said that the complainant had deposited D-form patta and he was entitled to the document as the debt in favour of principal borrowers was barred by limitation.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

14)              In the result the appeal is dismissed.  However, in the circumstances of the case no costs.

                                                1)  _____________________________________

                                                                   PRESIDENT

                                                 2) _______________________________________

                                                                   LADY MEMBER

                                                3) ________________________________________

                                                                   MALE MEMBER

Dt. 22. 04. 2009.

*pnr