BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.579/2008 against C.C.No.712/2006, Dist. Forum-1,Hyderabad
Between:
1.M/s. Canfin Homes Limited with its
Registered Office at Race Course,
Bangalore.
2. M/s. Canfin Homes Limited with its
Branch situated at 5-9-100,
Public Garden Road, Hyderabad rep.
By its Chief Manager. … Appellants/
Opp.parties
And
1.Smt. G.Radhakumari (died)
Per LRs. Respondents 2 to 4 herein.
2. Capt. G.G.K.Raju (Retd.), S/o.Late Suraparaju,
Aged : 70 years, Occ:Ex.Army Officer,
3. G.S.Roshan Raju, S/o.Capt. G.G.K.Raju,
Aged:35 year, Occ: Employee.
4. G.Gopala Ranga Raju, S/o.Capt. G.G.K.Raju,
Aged : 33 years, Occ:Agriculture,
Respondent No.2 to 4 are residents of
H.No.175 , Sector-A, AWHO Colony,
Secunderabad. …Respondents/
Complainants
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s.Deepak Bhattacharjee
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. P.Srinivas.
F.A.757/2008 against C.C.No.712/2006, Dist. Forum-1,Hyderabad
Between:
1. Capt. G.G.K.Raju (Retd.) S/o.Late Suraparaju,
Aged : 70 years, Occ:Ex.Army Officer,
2. G.S.Roshan Raju, S/o.Capt. G.G.K.Raju,
Aged:37 years, Occ: Employee.
3. G..Gopala Ranga Raju, S/o.Capt. G.G.K.Raju,
Aged : 35 years, Occ:Agriculture,
All are residents of
H.No.175 , Sector-A, AWHO Colony,
Secunderabad. … Appellants/
Complainants
And
1.M/s. Canfin Homes Limited,
Regd. Office at Race Courts Roads,
Bangalore.
2. M/s. Canfin Homes Limited, Branch
at 5-9-100, Public Garden Road,
Hyderabad, represented by its
Chief Manager. Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the appellants : M/s. P.Srinivas
Counsel for the respondents :
CORAM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order : (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
F.A.No.579/08 is preferred by the opposite parties and F.A.No.757/2008 is preferred by the complainants aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.712/2006 on the file of District Forum-1 , Hyderabad. Since both these appeals arise out of same Consumer Complaint they are being disposed of by a common order.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Ac.17-13 gts. of agricultural land in Sy.no.377 of Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. th husband of the complainant approached 2nd opposite party for obtaining a house loan to purchase a house in AWHO Colony, Sikh Village, Secunderabad. Second opposite party granted the loan by obtaining equitable mortgage of the agricultural land of the complainant and also original title deeds and link documents of the said property were kept with them. Subsequently the husband of the complainant repaid the entire loan amount but the opp.parties did not return the documents. The complainant filed O.P.No.444/97 before the District Forum-1, Hyderabad but the said complaint was dismissed by order dt. 20.4.2000 on the ground that the opp.parties already filed a suit O.S..no.1122/1998 on the file of 11th Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for recovery of amount of Rs.68,005/- with future interest @14.5% p.a. and the said suit was dismissed by order dt.31.8.2001. The opposite parties not satisfied with the said order preferred an appeal A.S.No.5/2002 on the file Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and the said suit was also dismissed by order dt.25.7.2005 confirming the judgement passed in O.S.No.1122/98. The complainant submits that the opp.parties have illegally and arbitrarily withheld the title deeds of the above said property and thereby she suffered huge financial loss and she could not raise any crop or develop the gardens due to lack of funds which could have been raised from any financial institutions by mortgaging the title deeds of the said property The complainant further submits that even if she raised normal seasonal crop in her land she could get a minimum net income of Rs.1,70,000/- per year and for 10 years she could not raise any crop in the said property due to lack of finances and thus suffered an estimated amount of Rs.17 lakhs. The complainant gave legal notice dt.26.1.1997 itself for which the opp.parties gave a reply notice dt.5.2.1997 with all false allegations. Hence the complaint seeking direction against opp..party no.2 to return the original title deeds and link documents pertaining to 17-13 gts. of land in Sy.No.377 of Poodur village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. and to direct the opp.parties to pay damages of Rs.17,00,000/- and to award interest @ 12% p.a. on the said damage amount from the date of dismissal of the appeal A.S.No.5/2002 till realisation and to award costs
Opp.party filed counter admitting sanction of loan and repayment of loan to the tune of Rs.1,85,892/- towards closure of loan account including penal interest of Rs.50,126/-. The opp.party submits that the total amount due and payable for closure of loan was Rs.2,36,015/- out of which Rs.1,85,892/- was only paid and unless the loan liability is liquidated it is not possible for the opposite parties to release the documents. The mortgaged land was very much in the physical possession of the complainants and they were never prevented from raising any crop in their land. The entire records were held up in the suit for appeal filed by them and after dismissal of the suit the opp.parties’ head office instructed to return the original deeds and for taking return of the documents they have filed an application in Civil Court and in the said process there was delay in return of the documents.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs. A1 to A11 and pleadings put forward allowed the complaint in part directing the opp.parties with joint and several liability to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order or else interest at 12% p.a. to be charged from the due date till the date of realisation and the complainant is also entitled for recovery of the legal expenses of Rs.2000/- and the complainant if advised may seek his redressal in Civil Court for recovery of damages in respect of the loss of income on the land.
Aggrieved by the said order the opp.parties preferred F.A.NO.579/2008 and the complainants preferred F.A.No.757/2008.
The facts not in dispute are that the deceased first complainant is the owner of Ac.17-13 gts. of agricultural land in Sy.no.377 of Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. and the second complainant approached the opposite parties for obtaining a house loan and the same was granted on the equitable mortgage of the said agricultural land and the original title deeds and link documents of the said property were given as security to opp.party no.2. It is the complainant’s case that the entire loan was repaid along with interest on 2.4.96. First complainant filed O.P.No.444/97 before the District Forum-1, Hyderabad which was dismissed by order dt.20.4.2000 on the ground that the opp.parties already filed a suit O.S..no.1122/1998 on the file of 11th Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for recovery of amount and the same was dismissed on merits on 31.8.2001 against which order the opposite parties preferred an appeal A.S.No.5/2002 which was also dismissed on 25.7.2005 confirming the judgement passed in O.S.No.1122/98. It is the further case of the complainant that the entire loan was repaid on 2.4.2006 and the opp.parties have illegally and arbitrarily withheld the title deeds because of which she suffered huge financial loss and she could not raise any crop which had a yield capacity to earn a net income of Rs.1,70,000/- per year. We observe from the record that the complainant got issued a legal notice (Ex.A4) dt.26.1.1997 calling upon the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at 18% from 1.11.97 since the loan was discharged completely, for which the opposite parties replied vide Ex.A5 stating that the complainant is still due an amount of Rs.50,126/- and therefore the complainant’s claim for damages is unjustified. Ex.A10 is the letter dt.24.9.2007 by Adarsh Farmers Service Co-op. Society Ltd. addressed to the complainant stating that as per the Co-operative by-laws they are unable to finance the crop loan without mortgage of the title deed and pass book.
It is the observed from the record that during the pendency of the case i.e. on 23.8.2007 the opposite parties have returned the original documents i.e. sale deeds dt.14.8.1979 pertaining to the land which was given as mortgage for the loan obtained and on 18.9.2007 the link documents were also returned. The prayer in the complaint is for return of the original deeds and link documents and also for payment of damages of Rs.17 lakhs @ Rs.1,70,000/- per year for 10 years. We observe from the record that the complaint was filed on 8.8.2006 whereas the opposite parties have returned the sale deeds and link documents more than a year after filing of the complaint i.e. on 23.8.2007 and on 18.9.2007 respectively. It is the contention of the opp.parties that the original title deeds were filed before Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court in O.S.No.1122/98 and thereafter appeal was preferred in A.S.No.5/02 and the appeal was dismissed and thereafter the record section of the Hon’ble City Civil Court could not trace the original suit bundle and that the delay in returning of the title deeds is neither willful nor wanton.
The District Forum has observed that if only a sum of Rs.50,126/- is due, the opposite parties could have filed a suit to attach the property of the complainant as security for securing the loan in future. It is apparent from the record that the original documents were with the opposite parties and the complainant could not raise other loans and therefore was put to loss.
The learned counsel for the appellants/opp.parties contended that there is no counter claim by the complainant and there was no compensation claimed by her and the learned counsel for the appellants/opp.parties also relied on the judgement of National Commission reported in 1992(1) CPR 523 in which the National Commission held that the behaviour of the complainant towards the bank was derogatory and dismissed the complaint. The facts in the instant case are different in the sense and that they do not pertain to the behaviour of the complainant towards the staff members and it is not the case of the opposite parties that the complainant has humiliated or mis-behaved with the staff. Therefore this decision relied upon by the opposite parties is not applicable. The learned counsel for the appellants/opp.parties also relied upon the decision reported in 2002 (3) CPR 105 which is the decision referred by the Apex Court in which the Apex Court has held that the question whether the Bank is entitled to reduce the loan facility or not and prayer for damages to the tune of 15 crores cannot be decided on summary proceedings . The facts in this case are different in the sense, that the main point for consideration in the instant case is that there was delay in handing over the title deeds and the link documents to the complainant after she has discharged her loan. Even otherwise the District Forum has directed the complainant to approach the Civil Court for claiming damages towards crop loss if any. We are of the considered view that the complainant has not preferred any counter claim in the suits filed against her in the City Civil Court with respect to damages towards crop loss. She could have exercised this option available to her Therefore it is open to her as directed by the District Forum to approach the Civil Court for damages on such crop loss if any, but however the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum towards the delay in not handing over the title deeds and link documents to the complainant is justified since these documents were returned only after one year after he has preferred the complaint before the District Forum.
There is no documentary evidence filed by the appellants/opp.parties in F.A.No.579/2008 that the original title deeds and the link documents were misplaced in the City Civil Court when the appeal preferred by them was dismissed as evidenced under Ex.A2 by order dt.25.7.2005 itself. In the absence of any substantial grounds/reasons to evidence that there was a genuine cause for the delay in returning the original deeds and the link documents to the complainant which were returned to the complainant only after filing of the complaint on 23.8.2007 and 18.9.2007 respectively i.e. more than two years after the appeal was dismissed by the City Civil Court, we are of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum towards compensation meets the ends of justice. For the aforementioned reasons the appeal filed by the opp.parties is also dismissed.
In the result both the appeals are dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd./PRESIDENT
Sd./-MEMBER
Dt. 29.10.2010
