THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NOS. 1157/2015 & 30/2016
D.Ganesh Shankar
S/o Late Sri.Chinna Venkanna,
Aged 60 years, R/a No.37,
“Srihari Nilayam”, New BEL Road,
8th Cross, KGE Layout,
RMV II Stage, Bengaluru-560 094.
….Appellant in appeal No.1157/2015
and Respondent in appeal No.30/2016.
(By Shri/Smt. R.Krishna Murthy, Adv.,)
-Versus-
The State Bank of India,
Basaveshwaranagar Branch,
Rudrappa Complex, No.325,
8th Main, 1st Cross, 3rd Stage,
4th Block, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-560 079
Represented by its Chief Manager,
Mr.Ram Prasad Prajapati.
Appellant in appeal No.30/2016
and Respondent in appeal No.1157/2015
(By Sri/Smt. Keerti Kumar D Naik, Adv.,)
:COMMON ORDER:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The complainant and Opposite Party have preferred appeal Nos.1157/2015 and 30/2016 respectively against the order dated:30/10/2015 passed by Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Commission in complaint No.1894/2013 for enhancement of compensation and to set-aside the impugned order. Since the subject matter is same, both these appeals have clubbed together for the purpose of common order.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant had availed loan to the tune of Rs.8,79,800/- for the purpose of purchasing a site bearing No.125 in M.S.Ramaiah North City, Nagawara Village, Kasab Hobli, Bangalore North measuring 50X40 feet and the Opposite Party sanctioned the loan and after sanctioning the loan they have executed a mortgage deed and received original title deeds of the site from the complainant. After clearance of the loan, the complainant requested the Opposite Party to return the original title deeds which were deposited at the time of mortgage by the end of 2010. But the Opposite Party not returned the original documents and stated that the said documents were mis-placed as they have migrated the said documents to R.A.C.P.C. and in that R.A.C.P.C. the said documents were mis-placed and shown their inability to return the original title deeds, for which the complainant alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission for compensation as he was intended to sell the said site after clearance of the loan and at the time of sale of the said site, the site was fetch the value to the tune of Rs.99,00,000/-. The said offer was made by one 3rd person. After knowing that the complainant had no title deeds, they bargain and reduced the value of the site and also offer to purchase the site for Rs.78,00,000/- Due to non availability of the original title deeds, the complainant suffered a financial loss to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/-. Hence, prayed for payment of the said compensation along with return of the title deeds.
3. After completion of the trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for non return of the title deeds well within time as the Opposite Party/Bank have returned the original title deeds during the pendency of the complaint i.e. in the year 11.11.2013. Hence, directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the delay in returning the original title deeds along with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
4. The Opposite Party submits before this Commission that they have not rendered any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and they are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed because they have returned the original title deeds whenever they traced it out, it was only misplaced at R.A.C.P.C. Branch and in spite of that the District Commission not considered the return of the documents and allowed the complaint without any valid reasons. Hence, prays to set-aside the impugned order.
5. On going through the memorandum of appeal filed by both complainant and Opposite Party, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had availed a loan to the tune of Rs.8,79,800/- and it is also an admitted fact that the loan was cleared by the complainant by the end of 2010. Since clearance of the loan, the Opposite Party has not returned the original documents. Subsequently, the complainant suffered loss and alleges that due to non-availability of the original title deeds, he suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/-. Hence, request for payment of the said amount. But the complainant had not produced any materials before the District Commission to show that the said site had the value of Rs.99,00,000/- at the time of selling by the complainant and it had decreased to Rs.78,00,000/- due to non availability of original title deeds. We observe here that there is only a delay in returning the original title deeds to the complainant. The District Commission considering the delay had rightly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to be payable by the Opposite Party in not returning the original documents well within reasonable time. As such there is no any irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission. Hence, both appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
:ORDER:
The appeal No.1157/2015 filed by the appellant/complainant for enhancement of compensation is dismissed and the appeal No.30/2016 filed by the appellant/Opposite Party to set-aside the impugned order is also dismissed.
The amount deposited in appeal No.30/2016 shall be transferred to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the Complainant i.e. D.Ganesh Shankar.
The original of this order shall be kept in appeal No.1157/2015 and a copy thereof shall be kept in appeal No.30/2016.
Return the LCR to the concerned District Commission immediately.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
