BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
C.C.102 of 2013
Between:
01Radhika Agarwal
W/o Sanjay agarwal
Age : 34 years, Occ : Business
H.no.1-2-593/17, Domalguda
Hyderabad – 500 029
02Ajay kumar
S/o Balkishan
Age : 31 years, Occ : Business
H.no.1-2-593/17, Domalguda
Hyderabad – 500 029 .. Complainants
And
The Asst. General Manager
Corporation Bank
3-6-285, Ground Floor,
Ameer Mahal Apts, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad 500 029. .. Opposite party
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. T. Sunil Kumar
Counsel for the Opposite party ; Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
AND
SRI R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order : ( As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao , Hon’ble Member )
****
1 This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer protection Act by seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.16,50,000/- with interest thereon @ 24% pa and compensation to the extent of Rs.32,50,000/- towards 10% of actual sale consideration and costs of the proceedings.
2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainants offered her immoveable property situated at Door No. 5-9-29/3, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad as collateral security towards bank guarantee limit sanctioned to M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewells of which the opposite party was one of the partners. The bank guarantee limit sanctioned was utilized by M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewells since 2003 and it was closed on 17.12.2009. Despite request made by the complainants, the opposite party failed to return the documents to her.
3. The complainant has submitted that they entered into an agreement of sale deed dated 07.11.2012 with Gautham Gupta, S/o Purushotham Gupta, resident of Hyderabad for consideration of Rs.3.25 crores and they received a sum of Rs.1.25 crores towards part of sale consideration from him and it was agreed upon that the property has to be transferred in the name of Goutham Gupta within a period of six months therefrom. The complainant’s letter dated 14.11.2012 for return of the documents could not draw any response from the opposite party bank. The complainant got issued notice dated 3.1.2013 for which there was no reply from the opposite parties. Gautham Gupta cancelled the agreement of sale and the complainants returned the amount of Rs.1.25 crores with interest @ 24% pa to him and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the broker.
4. The opposite party – Bank has resisted the claim on the premise that the agreement of sale stated to have been entered into, with Goutham Gupta and return of the part sale consideration etc. are invented for the purpose of filing the complaint. The opposite party has admitted that the complainants jointly deposited the original sale deed bearing document number 1546/2003 dated 21.5.2003 as security for repayment of credit facility sanctioned to M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewells, a partnership firm consisting of partners 1. Mr. Balkishan Agarwal, 2. Pramila Bal Agarwal, W/o Balakishan Agarwal, 3. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, S/o Balakishan Agarwal, 4. Ajay Kumar Garwal, S/o Balakishan Agarwal, 5. Vinay Kumar Agarwal, S/o Balakishan Agarwal, 6. Shanta bai, W/o late Ganashyamdas. The complainants stood as guarantors for repayment of credit facility sanctioned to M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewells. The title deed can be returned only on joint request made by the joint depositors. The complainant number 2 has not made any request for release of the title deed so far.
5. The current Account number 1921 maintained by M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewellls was attached by the Income Tax department vide order dated 29.5.2006. One DSP Reddy filed suit, O.S. 448 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, for recovery of Rs.86,10,499/- against the mother-in-law of complainant no. 1 and mother of the complainant no 2, Mrs. Parimala Bai and father-in-law of the complainant no. 1 and father of the complainant no. 2, Balkishan Agarwal and the opposite party bank on the ground that Smt. Parimala Bai had withdrawn fixed deposits held by DSP Reddy along with Mrs. Parimala Bai by submitting fraudulent documents.
6. DSP Reddy also filed Criminal Case in Crl. No. 477 of 2010 with the police Narayanagud P.S., against Mrs. Parimala Bai under Sections 406,409, 420, 467 and 341 of IPC and the statements of the official of the opposite party were recorded. The case is under investigation by the police. The partnership firm M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewells is involved in case no. RC/4/E/2011/CBIBS and FC/BLR filed by the Punjab National Bank with the CBI for fraud to the tune of Rs.71.12 crores and the matter is under investigation by the CBI. The investigation so far made revealed submission of fabricated credit information report by the partners of M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewells purported to have been issued by the opposite party bank.
7. The opposite party has submitted that on its verification of the website of Department of Registration found that the complainants raised construction known as “ Jewell Peak “ and sold the property under the registered sale deed numbers 1546/2003 to various persons under Registered sale deed nos. 1979/2005, 2317/2005, 2318/2005, 2319/2005, 2320/2005, 3614/2005, 3615/2005, 3616/2005, 3617/2005, 3618/2005, 3619/2005, 1745/2005, 1779/2005, 1780/2005, 1780/2005, 1781/2005, 1782/2005, 1783/2005 and the complainants are not the owners of the property as on the date of the agreement of sale dated 7.11.2012. During the substance of the mortgage in favour of the opposite party and without NOC issued by it as also without the knowledge of the opposite party bank, the complainant sold the property to various people and they are divested of their title even by the year 2005 and as such they cannot sell the property to Gautham Gupta. The shop owners of Jewell Peak are entitled to the custody of the title deeds as bonafide purchasers of the property and not the complainants. The opposite party has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. The complainant No.1 filed her affidavit and relied on the documents, Exs.A1 to A-4. The Manager of the opposite party Bank filed his affidavit and Ex. B-1 is were marked on their behalf.
9. The learned counsels for the complainants filed written arguments.
10. The point that arises for consideration is :
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
11. POINT : Most of the facts of the case are not in controversy such as the complainants jointly offering as collateral security the sale deed document bearing number 1546/2003 dated 21.05.2003 for repayment of bank guarantee sanctioned to M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewells and the closure of the account no. PRTBL/01/09000 consequent to payment of the amount made by Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewells. The complainants claimed for return of their title deed and on failure of the Bank in returning the document, they claimed huge compensation on the premise that a sale transaction in respect of the property covered by the sale deed lying in the custody of the opposite-party bank was cancelled.
12. The learned counsel for the opposite party-bank has submitted that the first complainant alone requested for release of the document which was jointly deposited by both the complainants and unless both the complainants request therefor, the document cannot be released by the opposite party-bank. She has contended that the sale transaction in respect of the property which was already sold during subsistence of the mortgage cannot be made basis to claim compensation from the opposite party-bank.
13. The first part of the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party-bank has no substance in the light of the letter dated 14.11.2012 and notice got issued by both the complainants which would throw any amount of light on request jointly made by both the complainants. The letter reads as under:
“Through Registered Post Ack-Due
Dt 14-11-2012
From
Radhika Agarwal 7 Ajay Kumar,
1-2-593/17, Domalguda,
Hyderabad
To
The Manager
Corporation Bank
Ameer Mahal Apartment,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad 500 029.
Dear Sir,
This letter is being written to you for the return of our Original Sale Deed Doc .No.1546/2003 dt.21.05.2003, which was kept as a collateral security towards the Bank Guarantee limit sanction to the firm M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems & Jewels.
We had deposited you the said Sale Deed for the above stated plurpose and as the total limit sanctioned to the firm M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems & Jewels was duly closed on 17.12.2009 ( Refer A/c No. PRTBL/01/090003) and there is not outstanding due, we request you to kindly release the said original documents and when these documents are ready please intimate me over my Mobile No. 9849699901 for enabling me to receive the said documents.
Yours truly,
Radhika Agarwal & Ajay Kumar “.
14. The notice issued on 23.01.2013 would strengthen the case of the complainants that they had jointly requested for release of the documents. In the notice the complainants referred to the letter they jointly addressed to the opposite party-bank. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the notice indicate the request jointly made by the complainants which are reproduced below:
“ 1. That my clients has placed their property as a collateral security towards the bank guarantee limit sanctioned on the firm M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems &Jewels and accordingly they have deposited the original Sale Deed Doc No. 1546/2003, dt.21.05.2003 along with its link documents with your Hyderguda branch, Hyderabad.
3. That my clients have even written a letter dt. 14.11.2012urging the Manager o the Hyderguda Branch to release the said documents but the said Manager has again chosen not to respond and reply to the same “.
15. The complainants jointly deposited the sale deed and they had jointly requested the opposite party-bank to release the sale deed. Consequent to the payment of loan amount and closure of the loan account of M/s Ghanshaymdas Gems & Jewels,, the opposite party bank has the obligation to return the document to the complainants which it has not discharged and to cover its lapse, the opposite party has raised a weak plea of non-submission of joint request by the complainants and the non-entitlement of the complainants to the release of the document which constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party –bank.
16. The complainants had stated that they entered into agreement of sale with Gautam Gupta to sell the property for consideration of Rs.-3.25 crores and received a sum of Rs.1.25 crores towards part sale consideration which they had to return with interest and incur a sum of Rs.32,50,000/- towards damages on account of cancellation of the agreement owing to failure of the opposite party-bank to release the title deed. Except stating that they entered into agreement of sale with Goutham Gupta, the complainants have not filed agreement of sale. On the other hand, the opposite party has placed on record copy of extract downloaded from the website of the Registrar of the Stamps Department which goes to show the sale of property to various purchasers during the period the credit facility extended to M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewells was in force. A paltry extent of area is left unsold. The unsubstantiated plea of sale of the property which was already sold to various persons is made basis to claim a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- with interest and Rs.32,50,000/-towards 10% of the actual sale consideration.
17. The exaggerated claim for compensation made by the complainants does not absolve the liability of the opposite party to compensate the complainants for their suffering, mental tension and hardship. The opposite party bank failed to return the documents even after closure of the loan account of M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewells. The complainants might have suffered mental tension on account of the attitude of the opposite party bank in not responding to their letter and notice. The remaining extent of the property unsold could have been sold had the opposite party bank released the documents immediately after request made therefor, by the complainants. Taking into consideration of all these facts, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- on all counts would meet the ends of justice.
18. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to return the sale deed bearing document number 1546/2003 dated 21.05.2003 and pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand only ) together with costs of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand only ) to the complainants. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
DATED : 09.07.2014.
( to be CONTD.. page 8)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : NONE
FOR THE OPPOSIE PARTIES : NONE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR THE COMPLAINANT :
Ex.A-1: 21.05.2003: sale deed number 1546
Ex.A-2: 25.02.2010; Statement of account No. PRTBL/01/090003
Ex.A-3: 14.11.2012: letter of the complainant
Ex.A-4: 03.01.2012: Legal notice from the complainants to the opposite party.
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY :
Ex.B-1: 11.09.2013: Statement of Encumbrance on property
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
DATED : 09.07.2014
