FA.No.754/2008 against CC.No.125/2007 District Consumer Forum-II Tirupathi.

Between-

A.M.Jagannadham, S/o.A.K.Murugesh Mudaliar,

Aged 47 years, Plot No.38, TUDA Plots,

Rayalcheruvu Road, Tirupathi.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank,

   Mosque Road, Tirupathi.

2.Regional Manager, O/o.Regional Office,

   Syndicate Bank, D.No.16-32, J.V.Street, Nellore.

3.Divisional Manager, O/o.Divisional office,

   Syndicate Bank, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

4.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

   Head Office, Syndicate Bank, Manipal,

   Bangalore City, Karnataka State.

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant         -      Mr.M.Hari Babu.

Counsel for the Respondents   -      Admn.Stage.

QUORUM- THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI G. BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

-------

            Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in extenso and having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the matter can be dispose of at the stage of admission. 

1.         The unsuccessful complainant preferred this appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum-II, Tirupathi dated 28.02.2008 in CC.No.125/2007 dismissing his complaint. 

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he availed a mortgage loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by depositing his title deeds for remodeling his house.  The instalment amount was Rs.7,200/-.  When one time settlement scheme was introduced, he was directed to pay Rs.96,307/- towards full and final settlement of the loan account.  Thinking that the loan account would be settled once for all, he borrowed money from a private party and paid the same to the bank.  However, the Branch Manager issued a counter foil by endorsing “compromise offer” at the left top corner of the said counter foil.  When he asked for return of his title deeds, the bank refuted the same on the ground that the matter was not settled as yet.  Though the bank had received the amount it did not return the documents, and therefore, he sought for return of the documents together with monitory loss of Rs.50,000/- and costs.

3.         The 1^st opposite party, the Bank resisted the complaint by stating that it was barred by limitation.  In fact the Branch Manager was not competent to deal with the settlement of loans.  It never agreed for one time settlement nor it ever endorsed compromise offer as alleged on the counter foil.  The letter addressed to the bank dated 29.03.2005 would show that it was the office staff of the bank, that endorsed on the counter foil.  Neither Branch Manager can represent the  nationalized bank, nor the question of his entering into one time settlement will not arise.  It is against norms of the bank.  Since the loan amount was not paid towards any settlement, the question of returning the documents will not arise.  Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed Exs.A.1 to A.6, while the opposite parties did not file any documents.  After considering the material on record, the District Forum opined that there was no ‘one time settlement’ as alleged by the complainant, and therefore, the question of returning the documents will not arise and therefore it dismissed the complaint, however without costs.      

5.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  The very endorsement discloses that there was one time settlement and pursuant to which he paid Rs.96,307/- towards full and final settlement of his loan.  Therefore, he prayed that the appeal be allowed.

6.         The point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for return of the documents?

7.         It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- on 11.01.1998 and created mortgage by depositing his title deeds.  He alleges that he cleared the entire loan, by paying Rs.96,307/-, which was settled under one time settlement. 

8.         The fact that there was settlement between him and the bank is not evidenced by any document.  The complainant alleges that when he deposited the amount, under one time settlement scheme, the first opposite party issued a counter foil endorsing “compromise offer”.  The Branch Manager disputes the said endorsement. Exfacie there is no evidence of one time settlement nor the officer, who had made such an endorsement on the counter foil. Assuming that such an endorsement was made it would only disclose that the settlement was under negotiations stage. The endorsement is that it was “complainant’s offer”.  It was never accepted culminating in agreement or settlement.  By virtue of the endorsement, the complainant could not have claimed that the matter was settled under one time settlement scheme and he was entitled to return the documents, which he had deposited by virtue of mortgage. 

9.         We do not see any error either in appreciation of the fact or law in the order of the District Forum.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.  This is a fit case where the appeal could be disposed of at the stage of admission.  The appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER              MALE MEMBER

Dt-25.06.2008.

Vvr.