27/01/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT         

            This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in case no.395 of 2013 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.5000/-, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and directing the OP to return the title deed to the Complainant within 15 days.  Being aggrieved by the said order the OP Bank has preferred the instant Appeal. 

            The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that he is a poor farmer and he availed himself of agricultural loan from the OP Bank by deposit of title deeds.  The loan was liquidated and no due certificate was issued.  But the title deeds have not been returned by the Bank in spite of repeated requests followed by legal notice to the Bank. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank has submitted that the Complainant took agricultural loan of Rs.15,000/- and the loan account was closed on 06/09/11.  It is contended that “no dues” certificate was issued.  It is submitted that as a matter of fact no title deed was deposited by the Complainant at the time of taking loan.  It is submitted that the Bank replied asking the Complainant to show document that such deed was deposited with the Bank at the time of taking loan.  The Learned Counsel has referred to the e-Circular of the Appellant Bank regarding relaxation in security norms for crop loans upto Rs.1 lakh.  It is contended that in case of loan upto Rs.1 lakh the primary security is hypothecation of standing crops, but the collateral security is nil. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant has submitted that Complainant is a poor farmer and after taking agricultural loan he repaid the loan amount and the account was closed.  It is contended that for any kind of loan the deed is retained by the Bank as a measure of security.  It is contended that the notice through Advocate was sent to the Appellant Bank, but no reply was given. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  It is the specific case of the Complainant/Respondent as averred in the petition of complaint that the Complainant had taken the agricultural loan by creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds.  On this point the Complainant wrote letters to the Bank on 10/02/12 and 01/06/12 requesting the Manager of the Bank to return the title deeds.  Not only that the Complainant had sent notice through Advocate on 10/09/13 asking the Manger of the Bank to return the deeds.  But no reply appears to have been given by the Bank to the Complainant in this regard.  As to the guidelines dated 26/03/08 regarding the sanction of agricultural loan as referred to by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant it appears that mortgage of land is at the discretion of the Bank.  The copy of the loan application and the sanction order issued by the Bank have not been furnished by the Appellant and from the letters written by the Complainant to the Bank it is evident that the loan was taken by the Complainant/Respondent by deposit of deeds.  It further appears from the BNA of the Appellant that the Appellant received notice issued by the Learned District Forum in connection with the complaint case.  Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Learned District Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. 

            The Appeal is dismissed.  The impugned judgment is affirmed.