DATE OF FILING-12.12.2012

                                                                                                                                                          DATE OF DISPOSAL-23.4.2014

                                                                                           O R D E R

Miss.S.L.Pattnaik,President

            The case of the complainant in brief is that his daughter has availed a study loan from Opposite Party No.1 and 2 Bank for her study in Hotel Management vide Loan Account No.01730031000630 for an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees two lakhs forty thousand) on dated 2.8.2006.  Against the above loan, the complainant had stood as guarantor  and mortgaged his land documents.  It is alleged by the complainant that although he has deposited regularly against the loan dues of my daughter, still the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 sent a notice  on dt.4.12.12 regarding repayment of loan dues of Rs.2,58,980/- which according to him is arbitrary and unjustified.  It is further alleged that as per the provisions while sanctioning study loan, no necessity to mortgage guarantee, but in the case of the complainant, the Opp.Party No.1 and 2 Bank have kept land documents as mortgage and even after several requests they do not return back such documents. Hence, this case for return of land documents and to provide detailed

                                                            2

statement of account of his deposits towards the loan and to pay compensation for the loss, mental agony and harassment caused to him due to negligence in duties and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  In support of his case the complainant has filed certain documents which are placed on record.

2           The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 put their appearance through learned counsel and filed written version jointly.  The Opposite Party No.3 and 4 have preferred not to file written version.

            The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 in their written version have admitted to have sanctioned educational loan of Rs.2,40,000/- vide Account No.EL/1/20060003 in favour of Sunita Maharana ,the daughter of Rabindra Kumar Maharana on 2.8.2006.  The bank had accepted the property of the complainant as security which was acknowledged by the complainant by putting the signature of both complainant and his daughter.  The Educational loan outstanding against the complainant’s daughter is Rs.2,89,233/- as on 27.2.2013 and he has been informed to take step to make payment in stipulated time to avoid legal action.  Under such circumstances, it is contended that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part since the bank have acted as per the guidelines provided for sanction of educational loan and, therefore, the case filed by the complainant has no merit at all and liable for dismissal.     

3        On the date of hearing the complainant was found absent.  Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and 2 was present and the Opposite Party No.3 and 4 were also absent.  Therefore, the case was taken up on merit as per provision of Section 13(2)© of the C.P.Act,1986, taking into consideration the documents filed by the complainant and having heard from the learned counsel appearing from the side of Opposite Party No.1 and 2.  We have also gone through the case in detail, perused the written arguments filed by Opposite Party No. 1 and 2.  

4        It is not disputed that the daughter of the complainant had availed the educational loan from Opposite Parties Bank for the sum of Rs.2,40,000/-  on 2.8.2006.  The loan was sanctioned to his daughter basing upon the equitable mortgage created by the complainant against such loan and acknowledged by the complainant himself and his daughter as a token of acceptance of a contract/agreement with the concerned bank.  As per the said contract the loanee is required to repay the loan amount as per terms and

                                                            3

conditions enumerated therein. Violation by either of the parties are sueable before the appropriate court of law.  In the instant case of the complainant, it is alleged that the documents  kept on mortgage are not returned back by the Opposite Party Bank and it is also alleged that there is no provision to keep mortgage the land documents for sanction of educational loan in particular.  But the complainant has failed to produce any relevant document to justify his claim before us.  Regarding the claim of the complainant for issue of notice to him regarding payment of outstanding dues, in this regard it is a clear provision of law that when a person availed loan of the bank he has to repay the loan amount with interest as per agreement made thereof  and in case of non-payment the  bank has every right to take necessary action to recover his loan amount.

5       In view of the above discussion, we hold that it is a settled principle of law that once equitable mortgage is created on an immovable property relating to disbursement of loan, documents relating to property can not be returned unless and until the loan dues are paid and loan is closed.   Since the loan is sanctioned based upon necessary contract agreed and signed by both the parties and deviation from any of the side are approachable  before the appropriate court of  law.  Therefore, this Forum is not the right agency to interfere in the matter of deviation in the loan case.  Hence, the instant case being devoid of any merit stands dismissed without prejudice to the right of the complainant to approach before the appropriate court of law, if he so desires.

            The case is disposed of accordingly without any order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.

            I AGREE                             I AGREE                                   PRESIDENT

 (Dr. N.Tuna Sahu,Member)   (Mrs.M.Pradhan,Member)           (Miss S.L.Pattnaik)