KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 389/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 26.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 124/2015 of DCDRC, Wayanad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Chandran, Manager, Canara Bank, Payyampally Branch, Payyampally Amsom and Post, Mananthavady Taluk-670 646.
- Canara Bank, represented by Manager, Payyampally Branch, Payyampally Amsom and Post, Mananthavady Taluk-670 646.
- Manager, Canara Bank Lead Bank, Main Road, Kalpetta Post, Kalpetta-673 121.
(By Adv. P. Balakrishnan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Sunny Samuel, S/o Samuel, Chakkittayil House, Payyampally Amsom and Post, Mananthavady Taluk-670 646.
(By Adv. Narayan R.)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 124/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (for short “the District Commission”). The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Commission.
2. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for an education loan for the education of his daughter in the nursing course. Since the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not sanction the loan, the complainant approached the District Collector concerned and it was only after the direction of the District Collector that the loan was sanctioned to the complainant. The complainant would contend that at the time of availing the loan, he had entrusted his title deed and tax receipt with opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant closed the loan on 17.01.2015. However, the documents submitted along with the loan application were not returned to the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite parties 1 and 2 to return the documents. However, they did not return the documents. The 3rd opposite party is the lead bank of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Since the documents were not returned, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version admitting the availing of the education loan for the daughter of the complainant. They also admitted that the loan amount was repaid and the loan was closed on 17.01.2015. However, the opposite parties denied that they received any document from the complainant at the time of disbursing the loan. The opposite parties contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked for the complainant. OPW1 and OPW2 were examined and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked for the opposite parties. Exhibits X1 to X7 were also marked. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to return the documents referred to in Exhibit X1. The District Commission further directed that if the said documents were not traceable, a certificate to that effect should be given to the complainant by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The District Commission also directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as costs and compensation together. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since no document was collected by the appellants at the time of disbursing the education loan to the daughter of the complainant, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The learned counsel would further submit that for the disbursement of education loan up to Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only), the bank could not require or collect any document as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and hence no document was collected from the complainant in this case as alleged. Since no document was collected from the complainant, the bank was not in a position to return any document. In the said circumstances, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in this regard.
7. Exhibit X1 is the application for education loan submitted by the daughter of the complainant, wherein the details of the property of the complainant was given. However, the recitals in Exhibit X1 do not disclose anything to the effect that the title deed of the property of the complainant was handed over to the bank by the complainant at the time of submitting the above loan application. Thus, from Exhibit X1, no inference can be made to the effect that the complainant had handed over his title deed to the bank at the time of availing the education loan.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the details of the property were unwarranted if the property was not required to be mortgaged for disbursing the loan and since the details of the property were required as per Exhibit X1, it has to be presumed that the complainant had handed over the title deed of his properties to the bank. The said argument of the learned counsel for the complainant cannot be sustained in view of the specific recitals in column IX of Exhibit X1 which would show that the copy of the land records had to be submitted along with the loan application, if the property was an agricultural property. The said column would show that no title deed of the complainant was handed over to the bank along with the application. It is also to be noted that if the complainant had actually handed over the title deed to the bank along with the application, the number of the title deed would have found a place in Exhibit X1, at the place where the details of the immovable property were given. Exhibit X4 is the acknowledgement of debt and security, which does not show that any such document was entrusted with the bank at the time of availing the loan or at any time thereafter. Exhibit X2 is the copy of the register for equitable mortgage, which also does not show that the title deed of the complainant was deposited with the bank towards equitable mortgage. The complaint is also silent with regard to the number of the title deed / document which was allegedly deposited with the bank at the time of availing the loan.
9. The District Commission relied on Exhibits X5, X6 and X7 coupled with the recitals in Exhibit X1 to come to the conclusion that the title deed of the complainant was deposited with the bank at the time of availing the loan. Exhibit X5 is the letter given by the complainant to the lead bank requesting to return the title deed of the complainant. Exhibit X6 is the letter sent by the lead bank to the opposite parties 1 and 2 requiring them to give a reply to Exhibit X5. Exhibit X7 was the reply given by the opposite parties 1 and 2 to the complainant on 22.08.2015, which was after the filing of the complaint on 08.05.2015. The District Commission assumed that the delay in sending the reply to Exhibit X5 was an indication that the complainant had deposited the title deed with the bank. The District Commission also proceeded on the assumption that Exhibit A1 lawyer notice was not replied by the opposite parties 1 and 2. However, the reply notice was produced by the complainant along with the complaint itself. The reply notice was dated 06.03.2015. It appears that the reply notice was duly sent without any delay. However, the said notice was not marked before the District Commission. In the said circumstances, the District Commission assumed that no reply was sent by the opposite parties 1 and 2 to Exhibit A1 lawyer notice. The above discussion would show that the finding of the District Commission was on the basis of conjectures and surmises, without having any factual foundation.
10. There is absolutely no material before the Commission to indicate that the complainant had deposited his title deed with the bank. It is true that when the complainant initially approached the opposite parties 1 and 2 for the loan, the opposite parties 1 and 2 were not prepared to give the loan. Therefore, the complainant had to approach the District Collector and it was only after the direction of the District Collector that the loan was given to the complainant. However, that cannot be considered as a reason to hold that the title deed of the complainant was entrusted by the complainant with the bank at the time of disbursing the loan, particularly when the bank was prohibited from requiring or collecting any document as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, for the disbursement of education loan up to Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only). The learned counsel for the complainant could not bring to our notice any material to indicate that the title deed of the property of the complainant was entrusted with the bank at the time of availing the loan. It also appears that the District Commission directed the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties to return back the documents mentioned in Exhibit X1. Exhibit X1 would show that no document relating to the property of the complainant was deposited by the complainant as per the endorsement or the recitals in Exhibit X1. Therefore, the said direction appears to be a direction which cannot be executed.
11. Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that the complainant could not establish by the yardstick of preponderance of probability that the title deed of the complainant was deposited by the complainant with the bank at the time of availing the education loan. In the said circumstances, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the opposite parties. Consequently, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained and hence we set aside the same.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 124/2015 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
