O R D E R<br /> <br /> M.R. DEVAPPA, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Briefly stated the case of the complainant is as follows;<br /> <br /> 1. That the complainant is the registered power of attorney holder of one Mr. K.B. Muthanna of Arji Village. The said Muthanna had executed registered general power of attorney on 18-3-1982 in favour of the complainant in respect of property bearing Sy.No.333/50 of an area of 3 acres in Arji Village of Virajpet Taluk. <br /> <br /> 2. That the said Mr. Muthanna also executed an agreement of sale of above said property on 31-8-1981 and 18th March 1982 agreeing to sell the above mentioned property to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. By virtue of the registered GPA, the complainant was authorized to avail loan from the opposite party bank. In that connection the complainant was asked to deposit all title deeds of Sy.no.333/50 along with the original copy of the registered power of attorney dated 18-3-1982.<br /> <br /> 4. That the complainant paid back the entire loan amount availed on the basis of said title deeds and general power of attorney and as such no liability is subsisting on the side of complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. That the complainant applied for the return of all title deeds in respect to Sy.no.333/50 of Arji village, but the opposite party however returned all title deeds of the said property except the registered general power of attorney dated 18-3-1982 and original grant order dated 5-1-1982 of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 6. That the opposite party bank has no right or authority to withhold the said registered GPA and grant order. That the opposite party wrote a letter dated 12-8-2008 asking the complainant to visit the office on any working day to collected the title deeds but when the complainant visited the opposite party bank the opposite party declined to release those documents. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, due to which the complainant has suffered financially and undergone mental agony.<br /> <br /> 7. That the complainant pray for the following relief;<br /> <br /> a) Release the registered GPA dated 18-3-1982.<br /> <br /> b) Direct the respondent to pay damages of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner with interest under the rate of 8% p.a. from 12-8-2008 till the realization and such other relief deemed fit.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has filed the following documents;<br /> <br /> 1. Copy of the general power of attorney.<br /> 2. Copy of the agreement of sale entered in to between K.B. Muthanna and the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. Upon admitting the complaint notice was ordered to be sent to the Manager, State Bank of India, Virajpet Branch. On receipt of the same the said Manager has appeared through his advocate and filed his version praying for dismissal of the complaint and has taken following contentions;<br /> <br /> 1. That the opposite party is not aware of the fact that Mr. Muthanna executed an agreement of sale as averred in para 2 of the complaint and that it is true that on the basis of said general power of attorney the complainant had availed loan from the opposite party bank and the loan is cleared in full.<br /> <br /> 2. That it is true that the opposite party bank has not returned the original general power of attorney to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. That the complainant approached the opposite party bank for returning of the general power of attorney and grant order. But the opposite party bank asked the complainant to produce the principal owner namely K.B. Muthanna before him, but the complainant failed to do so and in the meanwhile the opposite party bank sent a letter to Mr. K.B. Muthanna which returned un served with a postal endorsement “party not in station”.<br /> <br /> 4. That the opposite party came to know that the said Muthanna is no more as such any power of attorney executed by him during his time becomes null and void and complainant cannot seek any remedy on the basis of the said GPA.<br /> <br /> 10. That the opposite party bank has produced the Xerox copy of the saguvali chit, general power of attorney and copy of AD card for perusal of the Forum. <br /> <br /> 11. Both the parties have filed their affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. <br /> <br /> 12. Having regard to the averments made in the complaint and objections statement (version) filed by the opposite party bank the following issues arise for determination by this Forum.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the opposite party bank has committed deficiency in service in not returning the documents sought by the complainant?<br /> <br /> 2. To what order ?<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 13. The opposite party bank has admitted almost all facts in relating to the loan obtained by complainant on the basis of the GPA and land grant order. The main contention of the opposite party bank is that the person who has executed the general power of attorney in favour of the complainant is no more and there is every likelihood of misusing the general power of attorney by the complainant. But when the opposite party bank have chosen to return all the documents basing on which the loan was granted except the general power of attorney executed by Mr. Muthanna in favour of the complainant and land grant order. We fail to understand the logic in that kind of submission. It is none of the concern of the opposite party to with hold those documents. It is settled law that when the person who has executed the power of attorney in favour of the person he dies, automatically the power of attorney holder cannot exercise any right or authority and if at all if the power of attorney holder wants to exercise any right on the basis of the power of attorney the legal heirs of the principal can question the same and as contended by the opposite party bank the general power of attorney becomes null and void. When such contention is taken we don’t understand why the said general power attorney and the land grant order are withheld by the opposite party bank. It is also revealed that K.B. Muthanna who has entered in to an agreement with the complainant agreeing to sell the property is no more. We are not concerned with the rights of Muthanna and as well as the interest of the complainant and it is not open for the Forum to deal with such civil matter. The objection raised by the bank for not returning the documents namely original power of attorney and the land grant order (saguvali chit) in favour of the complainant do not stand to reason. They ought to have returned the documents when they have already returned other title deeds in favour of the complainant. Therefore, it can be said that the opposite party bank has committed deficiency in service on their part in not returning the documents referred to above and therefore we answer point no.1 affirmatively and proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. The opposite party bank is hereby directed to return the original General Power of Attorney which is stated to have been deposited with the opposite party bank and also the Saguvali chit (Land Grant Order) to the complainant and for having unnecessarily driven the complainant to this Forum, which has caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, the complainant is to be suitably compensated, hence the opposite party bank is directed to pay Rs.500/- by way of compensation and Rs.500/- towards the cost of this proceedings to the complainant.<br /> <br /> The above order shall be complied by the opposite party bank within sixty days from the date of the order.<br /> <br /> Communicate the order to the parties. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the open Forum on this 16th day of January 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.R. DEVAPPA), (K.S. PRASAD), (A.S. HEMALATHA),<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br />