Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1133/2021

Karnataka Bank Ltd. Represented by Managing Director - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr Manoranjan Shetty - Opp.Party(s)

Prashant T Pandit

14 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1133/2021

 

1 . Karnataka Bank Ltd.      Represented by Managing Director      Head office at Pumpwell, Kankanady      Mangaluru-2   2 . The Manager      Karnataka Bank Ltd.      Alkala Branch, Post Kinnigoli      Mangaluru Taluk   3 . The Manager      Karnataka Bank Ltd.,      Kodialbail branch      Mangaluru Taluk      Rep. by its Branch Manager      Aikala Kinnigoli Post, Mangaluru   (By Sri. Prashant T. Pandit)   V/s

……Appellants

Manoranjan Shetty S/o Late K Jogi Shetty Aged about 58 Years R/at Bandasale House Gandhinagar, Mudabidri

..…Respondent

 

 

 

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

This appeal is preferred by OP against the order dated 08.11.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.166/2019 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore.

2. Notice to respondent is dispensed with.
3. It is the case of the complainant that he had obtained staff housing loan from the OP bank subject to mortgage of his immovable properties situated at Karnire Village and also deposited the original Title Deeds including the original Sale deed dated 11.08.1945, Original Will executed by Acha Shedthy dated 17.01.1984, original death certificate of Smt.Acha Shedthy, RTC, Original Land Revenue Receipts, Original encumbrance certificate etc. on proper acknowledgement.  Further it is stated OPs have filed recovery suit in O.S.No.54/2008 before the Hon’ble Civil Judge at Mudabidri of Mangalore Taluk and on receipt of entire loan amount with interest and cost issued certificate dated 28.07.2016 and declared that the OP had no liability with the OP bank.  It is alleged by complainant that inspite of settling the dispute and making the entire payment of the dues to the OP No.2, OPs have not returned the original title deeds stated supra belonging to the complainant.  Thus, he issued legal notice dated 03.07.2019.  Despite service of notice OPs neither complied the demands nor replied the notice.  Hence, the complaint.
4. OP No.2 filed its version and same is adopted by OP Nos.1 and 3.  OP No.2 bank admitting deposit of sale deed of 2001 while mortgaging the property, it is contended that as per law, the title document had been given to the court while filing suit and thereafter, the Learned Counsel took it back and kept it with him in view of the non-conclusion of recovery proceeding.  In the year 2015 the complainant settled the dues at that time he took knew that the title document was in court or with the advocate.  He managed to collect it.  The complainant did not claim the linking documents till May 2019.  Hence, OPs prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Heard the counsel for appellant/ bank at the stage of admission. 
6. The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum for not returning original documents i.e., original sale deed, original will and some other documents.  According to the OP, there was default on the part of complainant as such bank filed case before civil court in the year 2008 itself and decreed amount was recovered.  Case was disposed of in the civil court during 2011.  In the year 2019 the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for non-returning of the original documents deposited.  According to the appellant bank there is a delay in filing the complaint for returning of documents, as such the District Forum erred in ordering for return of document which is highly impossible, on the other hand it is also contended that document was given to the bank and it was to be handed over to the party and party has collected the document from the counsel of bank. However, this aspect is denied by the complainant stating that no such document returned.  Document invaluable especially the will and also registered sale deed.  District Forum though ordered for return of document only defense taken by the appellant is document handed over to the counsel for bank.  This will not solve the problem of the complainant.  There is no endorsement produced that these documents were collected by the complainant from the advocate for the bank.  When loan of Rs.50,000/- was recovered based on suit decree, non-returning of documents amounts to deficiency in service. 
7. In the circumstances, party left with no remedy as such appellant /bank is directed to obtain certified copies of the document which are lost or misplaced or obtained by the advocate who has conducted case and issue certified copies of the documents deposited to the complainant and also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs within two months from the date of receipt of this order.  Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
8. Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.

 

 

MEMBER                   JUDICIAL MEMBER          PRESIDENT

 

CV*