Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/51/2012

Mahendranag.S. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syndicate Bank - Opp.Party(s)

MR.J.S.

28 Feb 2013

ORDER

ORDER

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the O.P. alleging deficiency of service in not returning the original documents pledged by him at the time of borrowing loan.

 

1. The complainant is an  account holder with O.P. and had borrowed money from the O.P. for studies.

 

1. The complainant repaid loan amount periodically and on 18/06/2006 complainant  paid balance amount to the O.P. along with up to date interest.

 

1. On 18/01/2012 the complainant received  demand notice from the O.P. bank to pay over due amount. On 23/02/2012 the complainant issued legal notice stating that  the complainant is ready to pay Rs.6,899/- and further the complainant replied to return the documents which were deposited by him. But the O.P. has not replied to the said notice. The complainant gave requisition to the O.P. to return the original documents, but the O.P. has not returned the same.

 

1. The O.P. has admitted that the complainant is an account holder and also has stated that he had borrowed education loan and the transaction is not in the order and as per account extract the complainant is still due of Rs.1,62,326.82 ps  as on 30/06/2012.

 

1. The O.P. issued notice to pay outstanding loan amount and unless the complainant cleared entire loan he  is not entitled to get back documents which he has deposited at the time of availing loan irrespective of his necessary or urgency what ever it may be.

 

1. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or facts. The O.P. has every right to retain the documents as guarantee till the loan is discharged.

 

1. The following points arises for consideration.
   1. Whether the complainant had shown the deficiency of service by the O.P. to him?
   2. To what order the parties are entitled?

 

1. The findings for the above points are as follows,

Point No.1: Does not answer.

Point No.2: Does not arise .

 

                                           REASONS

1. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the complainant that he had taken loan from the O.P. for pursuing higher education and he has repaid entire loan as mentioned in the account extract of the O.P. and inspite repayment of loan  the documents  given by him have not been returned by the O.P. and there by there is deficiency of service by the O.P.

 

1. The O.P. has admitted about borrowing of loan by the complainant but the version of the O.P. are that the entire loan has not been repaid by the complainant and therefore the question of return of documents does not arise unless entire loan has repaid  along with interest.

 

1. The O.P. has also  raised contention that the Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the issue as the relationship between it and the complainant is of borrower and lender and the jurisdiction vested with the civil court and not with this Forum.

 

1. In support of the above arguments the O.P. has relied upon the decision reported in Shankar Tube Wells V/s  State Bank of India, 1997(2) CPR 3 (NC), wherein  it has been held that

“ The complainant was sanctioned loan by the opposite party for which as security the partners of the firm deposited title deeds of their  properties with the opposite party to create equitable mortgage over the same. The transaction involved in the instant case pertains to borrowing of money by deposit of title deeds giving rise to a civil dispute and as such the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Act.”

 

1. The above decision though may not apply to the present case, but in the present case one party says that he has paid entire loan amount  by him  while the lender says that the entire loan has not been repaid by the complainant and therefore the question of returning of the documents does not arise.

 

1.  It has been  stated by the learned  author P.K.Mujumdhar in Law of Consumer Protection Act in 5^th edition at page 679 as follows:-

Though  the Forum constituted under the Act where vested with the powers to examine witnesses on oath and order discovery and production of documents, such powers were to be exercised  in cases where issues involved were simple such as defective quality of anything purchased or any short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of the performance of the service and even in such cases if it appeared to the concerned  Forum under the Act that the issues raised could not be determined without taking elaborate  oral and documentary  evidence, it was open to the Forum to decline to exercise jurisdiction and refer the party to its remedy by way of suit.”

 

1. In order to find out whether  the loan amount has not been repaid the Forum has to go into details of account extract  and oral evidence has to be recorded in the case in order to find out  whether   the account extract given by the complainant  is to be accepted or the account extract given by the O.P. is to be accepted. It is an admitted fact that  whenever the  details of the oral evidence  and details of  accounts has to be gone into by the Forum, the Forum does not have jurisdiction to go into the same and the jurisdiction vests with the Civil court.

 

1. In I(2013)CPJ 60 (SC) between Rajkumar Devidas Ghayal V/s Tata Motors Ltd. & another, it has been held that loan transaction when ever there is a dispute  of correctness of accounts or any dispute which pertains to account cannot be said to be consumer dispute which being a civil dispute and hence the complaint is not maintainable.

 

1. Apart from the above any question which involves  complicated question of facts it cannot be gone into  by the Forum in summary proceedings. In the present case as stated earlier oral evidence has to be recorded in order to find out which account extract is correct and further in view of the decision cited above, the Forum has no jurisdiction in summary procedure to go into the dispute in question.

 

1. In view of the above  point no.1 is not answered by the Forum.

 

1. Point no.2 also does not  arise for the reasons stated in point no.1.

 

1.  In view of the above following

 

 

ORDER

1. The complaint as brought  before this Forum is not maintainable and the complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate Forum and return the complaint for filing before the appropriate Forum.

 

1. In view of the above circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs.