This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of        Sri. Md. Azeez Pasha, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties No.1,2,4 & 6; Notice to opposite party No.3 refused; opposite party No.5 served called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, FAC President)

          This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a businessman doing business at Gandhi chowk, Khammam and he is a regular customer of opposite party No.1 organization since more than 10 years.  The complainant submitted that he obtained loan from opposite party No.1 in the year 2014 by pledging the registered sale deed bearing No.740/2013, dt. 22-01-2013 pertaining to his house bearing No.3-6-109, situated Pumping Well Road, Khammam, executed in his favour by his mother, and another document registered sale deed in the name of Bandaru Sarojini, W/o. Narasimha Rao, executed by one P. Narasimha Rao and 66 cheques pertaining to him.  The complainant submitted that  the loan amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was received from opposite party No.1, which is to be paid back in 66 installments, @Rs.36,500/- per installment, however, the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount on the very 4^th installment itself in lump sum.  The complainant further submitted that he had issued an authorization letter in favour of one Padamam Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chinna Gopaiha, R/o. Srinivasa Nagar, Khammam Town, however, the documents mentioned above and 63 cheques were not returned even to the authority of the complainant by December 2014, the complainant expressed his intention of cancellation of the authorization letter issued in favour of said Padmam Venkateswarlu.  The complainant further submitted that surprisingly opposite party No.1 tried to convince the complainant that he would settle the issue between the complainant and said Padmam Venkateswarlu, which is absolutely of not the business of opposite party No.1, on the contrary when the complainant tried to give a written letter that of cancelling the earlier authorization, strangely the opposite party No.1 bluntly refused to receive cancellation letter, for that complainant got issued legal notices on 25-08-2015, 06-10-2015 and 24-11-2015 through his counsel to the opposite party No.1, even after  acknowledging the same the opposite party No.1 failed to give reply nor returned the original documents pledged with them.  The complainant further submitted that on 31-08-2015  at the instance of counsel of opposite parties, a meeting was held at the office of opposite party No.2, between the complainant and the opposite party No.1, wherein, said Padmam Venkateswarlu, who has nothing to do with the business of the opposite party No.1 and complainant was also present and the counsel of opposite parties insisted the complainant to receive the original documents from him and to give due receipt of acknowledging  the return of title deeds, and was about to return the documents at that juncture a lot of galata was created by Padmam Venkateswarlu scolding opposite party No.1 in filthy language for which everybody of the meeting remained spectators and counsil is declared the meeting is concluded and without returning the documents.  The complainant further submitted that the opposite parties committed breach of service assured to the complainant, in returning of the original  registered sale deed pledged with them, even after receipt of notices from the complainant as the opposite parties failed to return the documents for that the complainant approached the Forum. 

3.        On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits A1 and A2.

Ex.A1:- Office copy of legal notices along with postal and courier receipts and acknowledgements (Nos.3), dt.25-08-2015, 06-10-2015 and 24-11-2015.

Ex.A2:-Statement of Account pertaining to the complainant at Laxmi Vilas Bank, showing the particulars of payment paid by the complainant towards the loan amount.

4.        On receipt of notice, the opposite party No. 1 appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  In their counter the opposite party No 1 admitted the fact that the complainant obtaining loan of Rs.12,00,000/- by mortgaging the registered sale deed No.740/2013 pertaining to his house bearing No.3-6-109, situated at Pumping Well Road, Khammam.  The opposite party further submitted that the complainant had submitted an authorization letter to opposite party which was issued in favour of Padmam Venkateswarlu, wherein, the complainant clearly mentioned to release the documents in his favour.  The opposite party No.1 further submitted that after receipt of entire payment from the complainant the mortgage property was released before Sub-Registrar, Khammam by duly executing the necessary documents by the opposite party.  The opposite party No.1 also submitted that on the same day i.e. on 22-11-2014 the complainant registered the property in the name of Padmam Venkateswarlu vide Registered Deed No.8506/2014.  The opposite party No.1 further submitted that after getting the original and link documents from the head office, Tirupathi they released the documents in favour of Padmam Venkateswarlu basing on the authorization letter issued by the complainant.  The opposite parties also submitted that the complainant was well aware of releasing the documents in favour of Padmam Venkateswarlu, the complainant has given authorization letter to the opposite party in favour of Padmam Venkateswarlu and all the notices issued to the opposite parties was subsequent to the release of the documents.   The entire allegations made in the complaint by the complainant are self invented for false claim and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in the entire transaction as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.      On behalf of the opposite party No.1 the following document is filed and the same is marked as Exhibit B-1.

Ex.B1:-Statement of Encumbrance on property, dt.23-05-2016 obtained from Registration and Stamps Department.

6.      Upon perusing the material available on record, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, pertaining to return the original registered sale deed pledged with them?

Point:-

In this case the complainant is a businessman and he is a regular customer of opposite party No.1 organization since more than 10 years.  According to the complainant, he obtained loan from opposite party No.1 in the year 2014 by pledging the registered sale deed bearing No.740/2013, dt. 22-01-2013 pertaining to his house bearing No.3-6-109, situated at Pumping Well Road, Khammam, executed in his favour by his mother along with link document and 66 cheques pertaining to him.  According to the complainant the loan amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was received from opposite party No.1, which is to be paid back in 66 installments, @Rs.36,500/- per installment, however, the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount on the very 4^th installment itself in lump sum.  The complainant had issued an authorization letter in favour of one Padamam Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chinna Gopaiah, R/o. Srinivasa Nagar, Khammam Town, however, the documents mentioned above and 63 cheques were not returned even to the authority of the complainant by December 2014, and for that the complainant expressed his intention of cancellation of the authorization letter issued in favour of said Padmam Venkateswarlu.  To his surprise the opposite party No.1 tried to convince the complainant that, they will settle the issue between the complainant and Padmam Venkateswarlu, which is absolutely of not the business of opposite party No.1, on the contrary when the complainant tried to give a written letter of cancelling the earlier authorization, strangely the opposite party No.1 bluntly refused to receive cancellation letter, for that complainant got issued legal notices on 25-08-2015, 06-10-2015 and 24-11-2015 through his counsel to the opposite party No.1, even after  acknowledging the same the opposite party No.1 failed to give reply nor returned the original documents pledged with them.  As the opposite parties failed to return the documents pledged with them for that the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. 

From the documents and material available on record, we observed that the complainant obtained loan amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the opposite party No.1 and repaid the entire loan amount on the very 4^th installment itself in lump sum.  After payment of loan amount the complainant had issued an authorization letter in favour of one Padmam Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chinna Gopaiah, R/o. Khammam Town and basing on his authorization the opposite parties returned the documents to Padmam Venkateswarlu.  And also we observed that as per Exhibit B-1 statement of encumbrance certificate dt.23-05-2016, the opposite parties released the mortgaged property before Sub-Registrar, Khammam by executing necessary documents on 22-11-2014 and on the same day the complainant executed registered deed No.8506/2014 in favour of Padmam Venkateswarlu.  From the above it is crystal clear that the mortgaged documents were released by the opposite parties and on that release the complainant executed registered deed in favour of Padmam Venkateswarlu.  The complainant in para No.6 of his complaint submitted that “the documents, mentioned supra and 63 cheques, were not returned even to the authority of the complainant, by December 2014” is baseless and the complainant failed to produce any document to support his case except filing legal notices sent by him.  And also per exhibit B-1 encumbrance certificate Padmam Venkateswarlu executed document by way of Deposit of title deeds in favour of Manager DCCB Bank Ltd., Khammam Rural Branch on 05-01-2016 vide document No.149/2006 of SRO, Khammam, which reveals that Padmam Venkateswarlu obtained the original registered sale deed pledged by the complainant with the opposite parties through the authorization letter issued by the complainant.    

In view of the above facts, we cannot attribute any deficiency of service against the opposite parties, as such this point is answered against the complainant. 

In the result, the complainant is dismissed.  No costs.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open forum on this the 17^th day of April, 2017.      

           FAC PRESIDENT                   MEMBER

                 DISTRICT CONSUEMR FORUM,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                 For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                       -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                           For Opposite party:-   

FAC President              Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam.