SRI G.SREEKARAN V/S R.K.BANSALI - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2290

R.K.BANSALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRI G.SREEKARAN - Opp.Party(s)

lakshman

03 Nov 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2290

R.K.BANSALI						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
SRI G.SREEKARAN						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 23rd JANUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2290/2008 COMPLAINANT R.K. Bansali, S/o. Bagchand, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No. 20, Paramahamsa Road, Yadavagiri, Mysore 560 020. Advocate (I.M. Kuttaiah) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Sri. G. Sreekaran, Vice President, (Special Loans Management Group), ING Vysya Bank Ltd, Residency Road, Bangalore. 2. The Manager, ING Vysya Bank Ltd, Asset Recovery Branch, No. 22, K.H. Road, Bangalore 560 027. Advocate (N. Khetty) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to deliver all the title deeds pledged with them and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP by depositing the title deeds. OP sanctioned the loan on 06.07.1994. With regard to the repayment of the said loan OP took the bank postdated cheques. Thereafter complainant thought of closing the said loan under one time settlement. As per the demand made by the OP he paid the entire loan amount during the year 2003 and got discharged the mortgaged loan. Thereafter demanded OP to return all the title deeds. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. OP in collusion with a guarantor delivered the said documents to the guarantor, which is unjust and improper. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Complainant even got issued the legal notice on 04.08.2008, there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. It is contended that complainant though aware of certain material facts which are well within his knowledge with regard to the filing of the O.S. No. 17783/2005, suppressed to mention the said fact. When complainant became the defaulter OP bank sent the demand notice. In the above said O.S. present complainant is defendant No. 2. While filing his written statement he denied the fact of receipt of any demand notice. Further it is contended that the guarantor has paid the entire loan amount. By invoking the provisions of Indian Contract Act sec. 140 and 141 the so called title deeds were returned to the guarantor. So there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Complainant himself is a defaulter in non-payment of the loan amount in due. Though complainant is aware of the fact of discharge of the said loan on 19.11.2003 by the surety, he kept mum for all these years and later on filed this belated complaint. The so called documents are produced before the Civil Court in the above said original suit. Complainant knows about the same, but still has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP served interrogatories and complainant answered them. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. The fact that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP by mortgaging the schedule property by depositing the title deeds on 06.07.1994 is not at dispute. According to the complainant OP did collect the post dated cheques towards the repayment of the said loan, thereafter he thought of closing the said loan under one time settlement, accordingly he paid the entire amount in due in the year 2003 and closed the account. What is the actual amount that was in due as on the date of closure of the said account is not mentioned by the complainant so also the date of payment of the said amount. So that contention of the complainant appears to be baseless. It is further contended that though complainant repaid the entire loan amount, OP failed to return the original title deeds. 7. According to the complainant when he insisted the OP to return the said documents OP directed him to bring the guarantor. There was no need for the complainant to take the guarantor to the Bank. The fact that one P.M. Bhansali the cousin brother of the complainant stood as a guarantor to the said loan is not at dispute. Unfortunately that fact is not pleaded. It appears there arose some dispute between the complainant, guarantor and others with respect to the schedule mortgaged property. Then one original suit came to be filed before the Competent Civil Court at O.S. No. 17783/2005 wherein this complainant is defendant No. 2. Though that fact is well within his knowledge, complainant has not pleaded the same in this complaint. So on the face of it, there appears to be suppression of certain material facts by the complainant, which are well within his knowledge. 8. The document produced by the OP dated 10.12.2003 clearly goes to show that outstanding dues was Rs.1,87,355/-. As on the date under one time settlement one P.M. Bhansali the guarantor paid it and took all the documents pledged with OP bank while creating the mortgage. Under such circumstances when guarantor has cleared the entire loan naturally he is entitled for the return of the said title deeds deposited with OP Bank. Complainant has come up with a strange answer to the interrogatories that he paid the said amount by way of cash to his guarantor, in turn guarantor issued the cheque in favour of OP. But this fact is not pleaded in the complaint. Whether as on that day of the closure of the account complainant had that much of huge amount at his disposal is not known. The fact that the guarantor issued the cheque to OP to clear the loan and that cheque is honoured is not at dispute. It is borne out by the records produced by the OP. 9. OP is able to establish that it is one P.M. Bhansali the guarantor the cousin brother of the complainant who paid the entire dues and closed the account and took possession of the said documents. When the Civil Dispute aroused those documents were produced before the competent Civil Court. Suit is filed in the year 2005 and written statement is filed by this complainant, who is the defendant No.2 on 25.11.2006. With all that this complaint is filed on 25.10.2008. The approach of the complainant rather does not appears to be as very much fair and honest. OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as well as invoking the provisions of the Contract Act as contemplated. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Though complainant is aware of so many material facts with regard to the handing over of the said title deeds to the guarantor and thereafter they being produced before the competent Civil Court, but still has come up with the frivolous complaint. 10. It is said he who seeks equity must do equity and must come with clean hands. But in this case the approach of the complainant is otherwise. Complainant has utterly failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is not entitled for the relief claimed. When the matter has reached the competent Civil Court complainant can very well redress his grievance before the said Court. Having taken note of the complex question of law, it entailed in this complaint, it would require volumeness evidence for its disposal, which is not possible by this Forum to go into all those procedural aspects in its summary jurisdiction. Complainant if so advised he can defend his case before the competent Civil Court, wherein a comprehensive suit is already filed. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 23rd day of January 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 23rd JANUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2290/2008 COMPLAINANT R.K. Bansali, S/o. Bagchand, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No. 20, Paramahamsa Road, Yadavagiri, Mysore 560 020. Advocate (I.M. Kuttaiah) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Sri. G. Sreekaran, Vice President, (Special Loans Management Group), ING Vysya Bank Ltd, Residency Road, Bangalore. 2. The Manager, ING Vysya Bank Ltd, Asset Recovery Branch, No. 22, K.H. Road, Bangalore 560 027. Advocate (N. Khetty) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to deliver all the title deeds pledged with them and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP by depositing the title deeds. OP sanctioned the loan on 06.07.1994. With regard to the repayment of the said loan OP took the bank postdated cheques. Thereafter complainant thought of closing the said loan under one time settlement. As per the demand made by the OP he paid the entire loan amount during the year 2003 and got discharged the mortgaged loan. Thereafter demanded OP to return all the title deeds. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. OP in collusion with a guarantor delivered the said documents to the guarantor, which is unjust and improper. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Complainant even got issued the legal notice on 04.08.2008, there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. It is contended that complainant though aware of certain material facts which are well within his knowledge with regard to the filing of the O.S. No. 17783/2005, suppressed to mention the said fact. When complainant became the defaulter OP bank sent the demand notice. In the above said O.S. present complainant is defendant No. 2. While filing his written statement he denied the fact of receipt of any demand notice. Further it is contended that the guarantor has paid the entire loan amount. By invoking the provisions of Indian Contract Act sec. 140 and 141 the so called title deeds were returned to the guarantor. So there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Complainant himself is a defaulter in non-payment of the loan amount in due. Though complainant is aware of the fact of discharge of the said loan on 19.11.2003 by the surety, he kept mum for all these years and later on filed this belated complaint. The so called documents are produced before the Civil Court in the above said original suit. Complainant knows about the same, but still has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP served interrogatories and complainant answered them. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. The fact that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP by mortgaging the schedule property by depositing the title deeds on 06.07.1994 is not at dispute. According to the complainant OP did collect the post dated cheques towards the repayment of the said loan, thereafter he thought of closing the said loan under one time settlement, accordingly he paid the entire amount in due in the year 2003 and closed the account. What is the actual amount that was in due as on the date of closure of the said account is not mentioned by the complainant so also the date of payment of the said amount. So that contention of the complainant appears to be baseless. It is further contended that though complainant repaid the entire loan amount, OP failed to return the original title deeds. 7. According to the complainant when he insisted the OP to return the said documents OP directed him to bring the guarantor. There was no need for the complainant to take the guarantor to the Bank. The fact that one P.M. Bhansali the cousin brother of the complainant stood as a guarantor to the said loan is not at dispute. Unfortunately that fact is not pleaded. It appears there arose some dispute between the complainant, guarantor and others with respect to the schedule mortgaged property. Then one original suit came to be filed before the Competent Civil Court at O.S. No. 17783/2005 wherein this complainant is defendant No. 2. Though that fact is well within his knowledge, complainant has not pleaded the same in this complaint. So on the face of it, there appears to be suppression of certain material facts by the complainant, which are well within his knowledge. 8. The document produced by the OP dated 10.12.2003 clearly goes to show that outstanding dues was Rs.1,87,355/-. As on the date under one time settlement one P.M. Bhansali the guarantor paid it and took all the documents pledged with OP bank while creating the mortgage. Under such circumstances when guarantor has cleared the entire loan naturally he is entitled for the return of the said title deeds deposited with OP Bank. Complainant has come up with a strange answer to the interrogatories that he paid the said amount by way of cash to his guarantor, in turn guarantor issued the cheque in favour of OP. But this fact is not pleaded in the complaint. Whether as on that day of the closure of the account complainant had that much of huge amount at his disposal is not known. The fact that the guarantor issued the cheque to OP to clear the loan and that cheque is honoured is not at dispute. It is borne out by the records produced by the OP. 9. OP is able to establish that it is one P.M. Bhansali the guarantor the cousin brother of the complainant who paid the entire dues and closed the account and took possession of the said documents. When the Civil Dispute aroused those documents were produced before the competent Civil Court. Suit is filed in the year 2005 and written statement is filed by this complainant, who is the defendant No.2 on 25.11.2006. With all that this complaint is filed on 25.10.2008. The approach of the complainant rather does not appears to be as very much fair and honest. OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as well as invoking the provisions of the Contract Act as contemplated. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Though complainant is aware of so many material facts with regard to the handing over of the said title deeds to the guarantor and thereafter they being produced before the competent Civil Court, but still has come up with the frivolous complaint. 10. It is said he who seeks equity must do equity and must come with clean hands. But in this case the approach of the complainant is otherwise. Complainant has utterly failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is not entitled for the relief claimed. When the matter has reached the competent Civil Court complainant can very well redress his grievance before the said Court. Having taken note of the complex question of law, it entailed in this complaint, it would require volumeness evidence for its disposal, which is not possible by this Forum to go into all those procedural aspects in its summary jurisdiction. Complainant if so advised he can defend his case before the competent Civil Court, wherein a comprehensive suit is already filed. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 23rd day of January 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.