D.O.F. 20.10.2010
D.O.O.21.01.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 21st day of January 2012.
C.C.No.250/2010
Thressiamma,
ChelaNirappel,
Aasankavala,
P.O.Vellad 670 571. Complainant
Manager,
North Malabar Gramin Bank,
Karuvanchal Branch,
P.O.Karuvanchal 670 571. Opposite Party
(Rep. by Adv.P.K.Ramesh)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to return the document bearing NO.1868/83 with `1,26,000 as compensation and cost.
The allegation of the complainant is that she had availed an amount of `18,000 as agricultural loan by mortgaging the property having an extent of one acre and pledged the document of the same having NO.1868/83. The central Government had under the Debt Relief Scheme written off the above loan of the complainant during 2007. So the complainant contacted the opposite party for release of the above document but he had not return the same even after several request made by the complainant at last during 2010 September 15th the opposite party told the complainant that they have not accepted the document of the complainant at the time of releasing the loan. But the sureties by name Ramachandran Thanika and Ealikutty Kadaliparambil were witness of pledging the document. Moreover the bank has returned the documents to those persons, whose loans were written off by the above said scheme of central government. So the complainant had issued a notice requesting to return the documents within 7 days of receipt of the notice, they have not even issued a reply even though they received notice. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed their version admitting that the complainant had availed a loan of `18,000 from them. But denied that the complainant mortgaged the property and pledged the title deed bearing NO.1863/83. It is also admitted by opposite party that the loan liability was written off in 2007 under the central government scheme. According to opposite party the allegation of the complainant that she was assured off return of document is a twisted version of the real facts and hence denied. The opposite party has not received such document and hence the opposite party is unable to return the same. There is no requirement of mortgage of landed property by depositing title deeds for loans up to `50,000 and hence no mortgage created on the property of the complainant. This fact is very much evident from the clear guidelines for grant of loan issued by the Head office of the bank. So the loan of `18,000 availed by the complainant does not require mortgage and hence no mortgage was insisted upon nor was any document deposited to create mortgage. The allegation that there were eye witness for an event like creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, which in fact requires signing of deposit memo by the complainant is quite for fetched. The complainant has no cause of action for the complaint. The bank is not in a position to return a document which has not been received by it or mortgage. So the opposite party is not liable to grant any loss or cost, since there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Up on the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A7.
Issues 1 to 3 :
The complainant’s case is that the opposite party has not returned the documents pledged before them for availing an agricultural loan of `18,000 even though her liability was cleared by the central government as per Debt Relief scheme during 2007. She had approached the opposite party for several times and because of non-receipt of this document she had lost the benefit offered by selecting her as a beneficiary of Naduvil Grama Panchayath under the EMS Housing Scheme during 2009-10. In order to prove her case she has produced documents like Krishi card, passbook, notice, postal receipt, acknowledgement, verified copy of ration card, list of beneficiary of EMS Housing scheme 09-10 of Naduvil grama panchayath etc. The opposite party also produced documents such as circular dated 24-10-98, loan agreement dt.29-7-99 and loan renewal agreement dt.23.9.04. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had availed `18,000 as loan and the loan liability was written off by the central government scheme. According to opposite party these have not received any mortgage by pledging any document on the part of the complainant. The opposite party produced Ext.B1 circular dt.24th October 1998 issued by Head office, North Malabr gamin Bank to the effect that the loanee has to hypothecate crops raised for the agricultural loan up to `30,000 and according to opposite party the loan availed to the complainant was as per these guidelines and hence they have not received any document. But according to the complainant they have received the document NO.1863/83 belongs to the complainant having one acre of property. In order to establish the contention of the complainant that the bank authorities were used to receive the documents of landed property she had examined PW2.PW2 deposed before the Forum that “1999  Rm³ temsW-Sp-¯n-cp-¶p. Btem¬ 2000 Â_m¦v Fgp-Xn-X-f-fn-bn-cp-¶p. Fgp-Xn-X-f-fnb hnh-cT And-ª-t¸mÄ t_¦n sN¶-t¸mÄ Fsâ tcJ-IÄ Xn-cn¨vIn«n-bn-cp-¶p. B[m-cT In«n F¶p FgpXn H¸n«v sImSp-¯n-cp-¶p. PW3 is also another witness who had availed loan on the same day on which the complainant had availed loan. She depose before the Forum that t{X{ky½ 18000 cq] tem¬ FSp-¯n-cp-¶Xmbn And-bm-T. Rm³ 10000 cq] temsWSp-¯vt¸mÄ B[m-cT _m¦n sImSp-¯-e-cp#p. Rm\pT ]cm-Xn-¡m-cn-bpT Htc Znh-k-amWv temsW-Sp-¯-Xp. t{Xk-ym½ B[m-cT sImSp-¡p-¶Xp Rm³ I-Xm-Wv. _m¦n NnÃn« Iq«n amt\-P-cpsS ssIh-i-amWv B[m-cT sImSp-¯-Xp. So the deposition of both the witness PW2 and PW3 substantiate the case of the complainant that she had given the document to the officials of the opposite party bank. Moreover as per Ext.B1 and B2 the person who is availing agricultural loan up to `30,000 has to hypothecate the crops raised in the landed property. Moreover Ext.B2 clause(1) says that “Whereas the borrower is in need of money for the purpose of raising crops and also for other purposes and at the request of the borrower and surety as per their application dated 27.7.99 the bank has granted or agreed to grant accommodation on overdraft to the extent of `18000. Upon the terms set forth in these presents on the scrutiny of hypothecation of crops raised and now standing or to be raised on the lands mentioned in the second schedule hereto and also other security documents listed in the first schedule hereto and also such other documents as may be executed by the borrower herein after collectively referred to as security documents. So according to this clause, the opposite party is receiving some documents as security and in the case the details of the property is shown in the second schedule. It is true that the name of the document is not mentioned in this first schedule, there is a possibility of receiving the document by the bank authority. The PWs2 and 3 also deposed before the Forum that the bank has received their document while disbursing the loan. Moreover the PW3 deposed that she had witnessed for handing over the document by the complainant to the manger. Above all this opposite party has not responded to the notice issued by the complainant on 17.9.10. Besides the complainant is an illiterate ignorant village lady and the facts and circumstances of this case also leads to draw the benefit of inference in favour of the complainant. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 substantiates that the bank authorities have a practice of accepting the documents of property of the loanee as a security. So the entire available evidence on records helps to draw an inference that the complainant had deposited her title deed as security at the time of availing loan. But admittedly the opposite party has not released the document even after discharging her liability. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for which they are liable to compensate the complainant an amount of `5000 with either to release the deed or to make necessary arrangement for getting a certified copy of the deed with paper publication. The complainant has produced Ext.A7 beneficiary list from Naduvil Panchayath and according to these she was selected as a beneficiary under EMS Housing scheme. So if the opposite party is failed to release the original title deed the complainant is further entitled to get `35,000 as compensation along with certified coy of the document and paper publication. The complainant is also entitled to get `1000 as cost of these proceedings also and order passed accordingly.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to release the title deed received as security from the complainant along with `5000 (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. If the opposite party is failed to release the original deed, the opposite party is liable to take necessary arrangements for getting a certified copy of the document along with paper publication and also further compensation of `35,000 (Thirty Five thousand only). The opposite party is also liable to execute the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In default the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act after expiry of 30 days.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1.NMG Krishi Card-cum passbook issued by OP
A2. Pass book issued by OP
A3.Copy of the letter sent to Op
A4.Postl receipt
A5.Postl AD
A6.Copy of the ration card
A7.Copy of the names of persons including the EMS Bhavana
Padhathi 2009 issued by Naduvil Gama Panchayath.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties:
B1.Copy of the circular dt.24.10.98.
B2.Copy of the loan agreement dt.29.7.99.
B3.Copy of the loan renewal agreement by OP dt.23.9.04.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.Complainant
PW2.Sebastian Parattiyil
PW3.Eliyamma John
Witness examined for the opposite party
DW1.Muraleedhran.K.P.
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
