Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed by GGM Industries, whose complaint has been returned by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, South Mumbai with a direction to approach appropriate court of law to redress its grievances. The facts to the extent materials may be stated as under: According to the complainant, they had taken overdraft facility from the State Bank of India /opp.party. While sanctioning overdraft facility the bank has taken some original documents of title in respect of property by way equitable mortgage. According to complainant, he wanted to sell said property and for that purpose he asked the bank to return the title deeds of the property. The bank insisted that another property should be mortgaged. According to the complainant, he gave title deed of different property so as to secure overdraft facility given by State Bank of India. Thereafter, the complainant decided to sell the property pertaining to first documents of title given to the bank. The complainant asked the bank to return the said title deed since he had given the title deed of another property which was bigger in its value and size. According to complainant, such request was not acceded to and the bank never returned those title deeds. He wanted to have those title deeds to sell that property since at that time there was spurt in prices of the immovable property in the market. After about 3-4 years only in November-2001 the bank supplied certified duplicate copies of said documents of title. By that time the property market had gone down and the complainant suffered heavy loss and for recovery of the said loss, he filed consumer complaint claiming Rs.4,14,000/- towards the loss suffered, interest of Rs.3,76,932 and Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- for cost of proceedings. Opp.party filed written statement and contested the claim and pleaded that complainant had given the title deeds to M/s.Bahve and Company as per complainant’s letter dated 12/01/1998 and pleaded that statement of complainant is absolutely false. Opp.party pleaded that they had taken up this matter with all the three brothers and partners of M/s.Bahve and Company. They stated that complainant had not given any such documents to them. They therefore pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost. On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below held that the matter in question cannot be decided by District Consumer Redressal Forum under its summary power. It requires lot of evidence to be taken into consideration. Therefore, Forum below by its cryptic order held that complainant should approach appropriate court for rederessal of his grievance and accordingly directed the complainant in its impugned order to approach appropriate court and disposed of this complaint. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has filed this appeal. We heard submissions of Adv.Mr.A.Patwardhan for appellant and Adv.Mr.S.R.Kadam for respondent. We are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, South Mumbai directing the complainant to approach civil court is bad in law and cannot be sustained in law. It is simply a complaint of non-delivery of original title deeds which the complainant had lodged for equitable mortgage to secure the overdraft facility provided by bank. The bank is supposed to return the documents when at the instance of bank another security of higher value was given by the complainant and bank had accepted those documents. Once subsequent documents of title deed are accepted, it was duty of the bank to return first set of title documents as asked by the complainant. So, there was clearly deficiency in service on the part of opp.party-bank and it is a simple matter which can be entertained by District Consumer Redressal Forum in its summary jurisdiction. We are told by Adv.Patwardhan that President In-Charge of one Forum and Member of another Forum constituted the Bench which was not constituted as per order of State Commission. So, even otherwise the order passed by the Forum below which has been signed by Shri Sunil Bagve, President and Shri Sunil Rane, Member is appearing to be not sustainable in law on this ground also. Hence, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. Impugned order dated 31/05/2007 giving direction to complainant to approach Civil Court is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. Matter is remanded back to the Forum below and District Consumer Redressal Forum, shall dispose of the same in accordance with the law. 4. Both the parties are directed to appear before District Consumer Redressal Forum, South Mumbai on 07/12/2010. 5. District Consumer Redressal Forum, South Mumbai shall dispose of the matter as far as possible within period of two months from the first date of appearance after remand. 6. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 7. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules. Nbh | 
