Date of Filing : 19.03.2012
Date of Order : 16.06.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 16th JUNE 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CC No. 46 / 2012
Dr. Ashwin.K.V.
S/o. K.S. Venkatachalapathi,
Sri Kamala Nilaya,
Opp: Shankara Vidhyalaya, Masthi Colony,
Kolar City.
(By Sri. G.V. Gopal reddy, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Near Doomlight Circle, Old Extension,
Kolar City.
(By Sri. N.G. Vasudev Murthy, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complaint u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to OP to issue education loan or to release his original house documents are necessary:-
Complainant took housing loan in Account No. 0539619000751 from the OP in the year 2002 and pledged the document of title of his property in Khata No. 102, A.R. No. 111 at Old Tiles Factory Layout, Near Bangarpet Circle, Kolar City and he has paid installments regularly and closed the loan account on 19.08.2010 by paying all the installments. Immediately thereafter, Complainant approached OP several times, but the OP did not release the documents. Complainant wanted education loan. Even that was not granted. OP issued letter on 19.08.2010 stating that they are not releasing the document since the Complainant is the Co-obligant to one B.C. Muralidhar. Complainant has not pledged his property with respect to another loan. Hence the Complaint.
2. In brief the version of OP are:-
Complainant obtaining housing loan by depositing title deed of property and discharging and closure of loan are admitted. There is an indirect liability as co-obligant to the housing loan of one B.C. Muralidhar. Under the general lien, loan document cannot be released. The said Muralidhar has taken housing loan of Rs.10.00 Lakhs and repaid about 30% and still he is due and Muralidhar has mortgaged his house property. Complainant had taken other loans and those loans were closed. Regarding B.C. Muralidhar, OP had filed suit in O.S. No. 217/2010 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kolar, for Rs.8,59,740/- and it is still pending. Hence the Complaint be dismissed.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, Complainant had filed affidavit and OP had filed Memo stating that version & documents be read as their evidence. Arguments were heard.
4. Points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether the OP have lien of the property of the Complainant with respect to loan of B.C. Muralidhar?
(B) What order ?
5. Our answers for the above points are as under:
(A) Negative
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and the documents of both parties, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant is the owner of certain properties which were gifted by his father on 01.02.2002. Complainant had obtained housing loan on the said property and an agreement was entered into between the parties in this regard. Complainant had discharged entire loan on 19.08.2010 and the loan was cleared and there was no due with respect to the said loan.
7. It is also established that the Complainant had obtained Canara Mobile Loan on 26.05.2007 for Rs.3.00 Lakhs and it was closed on 08.07.2010. He had obtained housing loan of Rs.5.00 Lakhs on 28.06.2002 and it was closed on 19.08.2010 and he has obtained another housing loan of Rs.10,90,000/- on 03.06.2009 and he has paid the installments regularly. He had obtained education loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to his wife on 18.06.2006 and it was closed on 11.08.2008. Thus, there are no dues from the Complainant.
8. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant was guarantor to one Muralidhar regarding loan amount of Rs.10.00 Lakhs and Muralidhar has paid certain amounts. Regarding loan amount of Muralidhar, OP has filed suit in O.S. No. 217/2010 before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolar and the matter is still pending adjudication. That means, whether Muralidhar is due or not etc. is to be decided by the Court and it is not decided yet. Muralidhar has also pledged his property to the said loan. Now, we have to see whether the OP could retain the document of title of the Complainant though the loan has been discharged by him and nothing is due from him. The Learned Counsel for the OP filed copy of Letter evidencing deposit of title deed dtd. 01.06.2002. The said Letter reads thus:
This does not say that Complainant has deposited title deed of him even with respect to loan of Muralidhar. Whether Muralidhar is due or not is to be seen in the Civil Court. Ops have not obtained any attachment before the judgement of the property of the Complainant in this case with respect to loan of Muralidhar. Even regarding lien OP has not issued or marked lien on the title deed of the Complainant with respect to loan of Muralidhar. Loan of Muralidhar is yet to be adjudicated. Muralidhar has given security of his property. Hence, there is no necessity to deny the title deed of the Complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service.
9. Granting of loan is in the discretion of the OP. For grant or release of loan, OP has to follow certain Rules & Law. Court cannot sit in Appeal regarding granting of loan. That discretional power is vested only with the OP and the concerned Bank and that cannot be exercised or substituted by the Forum or Court. Hence, this Court cannot order or direct the OP to sanction the education loan to the Complainant.
10. Hence, under these circumstances, we hold the above points accordingly and we pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to return all the original documents that have been pledged and given to it regarding housing loan of the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this Order.
3. OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. OP is directed to send the costs of litigation by Demand Draft and all the original documents to the Complainant through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report within 45 days.
5. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th of June 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
