BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., President.
Smt.U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.LL.B., P.G.D.C.P.L.,
Male Member.
Friday, the 17th day of September, 2008
CC.No.35 /2008
Between:
Mohd.Naseeruddin S/o Mohd.Gulam Ali,
Aged 35 years, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o Gollapally (v),
Mandal Kondapur, District Medak.
… Complainant
And
The Asst.General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Branch Sangareddy,
District Medak.
… Opposite party.
This complaint came up for final hearing before us on 19.09.2008 in the presence of Sri M.K,Najeeruddin, Advocate for the complainant , the opposite party received notice and not appeared, upon hearing the arguments of complainant advocate and on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day , this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, President)
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments:
The complainant is pattadar and processor of Ac.0-30 guntas of land in Sy.No.70/A and one Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No.164/A1 situated in Gollapally village by virtue of final patta certificate bearing No.B/2352/2003 dt.28.1.2004 issued by Mandal Revenue officer, Kondapur as the complainant is a landless poor person, having resumed the lands from Abdul Gaffoor and Shaik Hussain. From the date of assignment the complainant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands. The complainant approached the opposite party for sanction of agricultural loan who has agreed to sanction on mortgaging the above said property towards collateral security and referred the documents to their standing counsel who gave opinion certifying clear title for execution of mortgage in favour of the bank. After the perusing the said opinion the opposite party delivered all necessary documents such as agreement of hypothecation , mortgage deed form. The complainant got the documents stamped and filed before the opposite party. The officials of the opposite party bank agreed to give Rs.2,47,000/- including Rs.47,000/- as cash credit loan and Rs.2,00,000/- as agricultural loan. Accordingly the complainant executed mortgage deed bearing document No.5/2008 dt2.1.2008 in favour of the opposite party which is incorporated in the encumbrance certificate. After submission of all required documents the bank officials of opposite party refused to give loan and return the documents stating that assigned lands are not acceptable for mortgage, even though they have advanced several loans to the assignees of such lands. As per section 6 of the A.P. Assigned Lands Act the opposite party bank is exempted for accepting mortgage. Even though the said provision is brought their notice the bank officials were not wiling to give the loan . In view of the assurance of the opposite party the complainant obtained necessary documents from revenue department by incurring Rs.5,000/- and also incurred Rs.1,000/- for obtaining legal opinion from the standing counsel of the opposite party by paying fees to him and also got stamped the documents by incurring Rs.500/- and executed mortgage deed by spending Rs.1000/-. He has spent Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance and other charges for roaming round the bank officials from January, 2008. Because of the negligent attitude of the bank officials the complainant spent Rs.12,500/- under the above heads. The complainant borrowed the money from private person and paying interest at 3% per month as such the opposite party is liable to pay the said amount with interest at 3% per month from January, 2008. As the complainant complied with the terms and conditions of the bank and as the opposite party bank failed to sanction the loan even after certification about the clear title the same amounts to deficiency in service of opposite party and hence the opposite party is liable to pay the amounts spent by the complainant with interest. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages and Rs.20,000/- compensation for mental agony and costs of proceedings and also the loan amount of Rs.2,47,000/- together with an amount of Rs.12,500/- towards reimbursement expenses. Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite party resisted by the complainant by filing its version to the following effect:-
The opposite party is not aware whether the complainant is Pattedar and possessor of agricultural land in Survey No.70/A admeasuring 0-30 guntas and Survey No.164/A1 admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas situated at Gollapally village by virtue of final patta certificate issued by MRO, Kondapur having resumed from Abdul Guffoor and Shaik Hussain and since then the complainant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. When the complainant approached the opposite party bank for sanction of agriculture loan the same was denied. Without communicating principle letter of sanction the complainant obtained legal opinion. In general opposite party bank officials refer the documents to their counsel for certifying prima facie title to the property offered as security. Opposite party denies issuing of necessary documents such as agreement of hypothecation, mortgage form and accordingly the complainant got stamped the documents and after filling mortgage deed by the bank officials, the opposite party agreed to give loan of Rs.2,47,000/- including Rs.47,000/- as cash credit loan and Rs.2,00,000/- as agriculture loan. The opposite party bank is not aware whether the complainant executed the mortgage deed bearing document No.5/08, dt.02.1.2008 in favour of the opposite party bank and that the said fact is incorporated in the encumbrance certificate. The complainant managed to get the documents and without the consent of opposite party filled the amount according to his own choice and alleged to be executed the mortgage deed. The complainant has not submitted any documents to the opposite party bank as security till now as alleged. The opposite party denies that its officials refused to give loan after submitting the required documents and returned the documents to the complainant in forming that assigned lands are not acceptable for mortgage. Opposite party also denies that they have advance several loans to the assignees accept in the case of the complainant. It is false and a created story. Opposite party bank officials are not encouraging for creating mortgage because there is more risk in advancing against assigned lands as the government may take any decision for resumption of land by giving short notice to the beneficiaries. Demanding loan is not a matter of right to any one. Bank needs to consider integrity, willingness to pay and also capacity to repay the loan and depending upon the modalities of the bank the loan applications are being processed. Opposite party never assured the complainant sanction of loan. The complainant himself voluntarily obtained revenue records. With regard to payment of opinion charges of Rs.1000/- which is being collected by the advocate at the time of issuance of opinion, if this forum feels, the opposite party bank is ready to reimburse the opinion charges but with regard to stamping of document the opposite party is not concerned as the same was not done at the instance of the opposite party. Like wise the opposite party is not liable to pay any conveyance expenses to the complainant.
2(b) The complainant approaching the Advances Processing Officer who insisted the complainant to show the land and to identify in the pre-sanction of loan formality and the complainant failed to show where the land is located. Hence the opposite party bank did not commit any deficiency in service as such they are not liable to pay any amounts as alleged by the complainant towards reimbursement of expenses and for damages and compensation. It is false that the complainant roamed around the opposite party bank from January 2008. There are no contractual obligations between the complainant and the opposite party bank and the opposite party bank has not charged any amount towards services as such this forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no customer and banker relationship between the complainant and the opposite party bank. The complainant may there be dismissed with exemplary costs.
3. Evidence affidavit of complainant is filed through which Exs.A.1 to A.10 are marked. Counsel for the complainant filed a memo to treat the contents of evidence affidavit as arguments. Evidence affidavit of Branch Manager of opposite party bank is filed but no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party. Opposite party counsel filed a memo stating that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed to treat the version and evidence affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party as written arguments on its behalf. Oral arguments of both sides heard. Perused the record.
The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and whether the complainant is entitled for the various amounts claimed in the complaint under different heads ?
Point:
4. The complainant’s case is that under the original of Ex.A4 final patta certificate the two pieces of lands mentioned in the complaint were assigned and he approached the opposite party for sanction of agricultural loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and for cash credit loan of Rs.47,000/- and official of the opposite party bank agreed to sanction loan if the said lands are mortgaged as collateral security and the complainant agreed for the same there upon the bank officials delivered to him the various documents like agreement of hypothecation and mortgage deed form and he submitted them by duly executing and stamping as required by spending Rs.12,500/- but the bank officials refused to sanction loan on the ground that assigned lands will not be accepted for mortgage and there by the opposite party bank is deficient in service therefore the complainant is entitled to for a direction to the opposite party for payment of the loan amount of Rs.2,47,000/- and reimbursement of Rs.12,500/- and also to pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation.
5. During the arguments the counsel for the opposite party bank agreed with the contention of the complainant’s advocate that there is no prohibition in A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 to accept security of assigned lands for grant of agriculture loans. But his contention is the bank has not at all delivered any loan documents such as hypothecation agreement and mortgage deed form to the complainant and never agreed to sanction loan. According to him the complainant obtained such documents from other sources like from broker but not from the bank.
6. The learned counsel for opposite party bank referred to Exs.A1 and A.3 and contended that as per Ex.A.1 total extent of Survey No.70/A is Ac.1-10 and total extent of survey No.164 is Ac.40-14 and as per Ex.A.3 the total extent of survey No.164/1 of Gollapally village is Ac.26-01 out of which as seen from Ex.A.4 the lands assigned to the complainant are 30 guntas in survey No.70 and Ac.1-20 guntas in survey No.164 but it does not contain boundaries of the said pieces of lands therefore it is not possible to locate where actually the lands covered by Ex.A.4 are located in the total extents of the said survey numbers. According to the learned counsel for opposite party bank basing upon such material it can not be believed that the opposite party bank agreed to sanction loan and instructed the complainant to execute the mortgage deed and delivered loan documents to him as contended in the complaint.
