BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad,B.A.,LL.B. President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 20th day of June, 2008
C.C.No. 158/07
Between:
A. Krishna Rao, S/o. Narayana Rao,
R/o.H.No.28-1063-A, Saibaba Nagar, Nandyal,
Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
Dhone Branch,
Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. … Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.A.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.V.V.Krishnama Raju, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.158/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to return to the complainant the title deed bearing No.1143/1984 dated 2-6-1984, Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant was the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Bethamcherla Branch during 1996 to 1998 and was removed from the service on 3-4-2001. One B. Venkata Siddaiah dufty of the same branch misappropriated the funds of the said branch and the said bank filed a suit O.S.No.28/2002 on the file of Ist Additional District Judge, Kurnool for realization of misappropriated amount on the ground that there is negligent on part of the complainant, while acting as Branch Manager. The complainant defended the suit by filling written statement and suit is pending. During 1985 the complainant obtained housing loan by depositing his title deed bearing No.1143/1984 dated 2-6-1984 with opposite party and the housing loan was repaid in toto by September 2001 and the complainant thereafter, requested for return of his title deed. The opposite party has been stating that he has written to the higher authorities seeking permission for release of title deed. Finally on 2-8-2007 the opposite party written a letter stating that he has exercised lien on the title deeds for a civil case pending against the complainant. But the complainant submits that the opposite party has no authority to retain the title deed even after repaying the housing loan. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party in not returning the title deed.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) letter dated 22-10-2001 of opposite party to complainant, (2) letter dated 4-10-2002 of complainant to opposite party, (3) letter dated 10-11-2002 of complainant to Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, Secunderabad, (4) letter dated 19-5-2004 of the complainant to Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Secunderabad, (5) letter dated 20-3-2007 of complainant to opposite party and (6) reply letter dated 2-8-2007 of opposite party to complainant , besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite party besides questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case in facts and on law requiring strict proof of the complaint averments and admits that the complainant is Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Bethamcherla Branch and was removed from services on 3-4-2001. A suit O.S.No.28/2002 on file of Ist Additional District Judge, is filed for recovery of misappropriated funds of the bank from the complainant and others, the complainant colluded with duffery of the same branch by name Venkata Siddaiah misappropriated the funds of State Bank of India, Bethamcherla branch to an extent of Rs.24 lakhs, for recovery of which the suit is filed. It further submits that the complainant deposited title deed bearing No.1143/1984 and created equitable mortgage for securing housing loan in the capacity of an employee of State Bank of India. Hence, the complainant is not a consumer and further alleges that the complaint filed by the complainant is time barred one as his request for return of title deed was rejected long back and there are no other properties to the complainant to repay misappropriated amount to the opposite party. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on opposite party bank and the opposite party is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with cost.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties did not file any documents, but relied on the affidavit of opposite party and the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled.
8. There is no dispute regarding the availment of loan by the complainant from the opposite parties and the said loan account is closed in September, 2001. The only dispute the complainant alleges is that he availed housing loan by depositing title deed 1143/1984 dated 2-6-1984 by creating equitable mortgage and cleared the loan in September 2001. The complainant alleges that even after clearing said loan amount, the opposite party did not return the title deeds to the complainant.
9. On the other side, the opposite party in his written version averments submits that the complainant misappropriated amount of the bank and has no other property to repay the misappropriate amount and the bank has exercised lien over the said deeds. But the complainant submits that he deposited his title deed for securing housing loan and not for other departmental matters, and when the loan amount is cleared by the complainant, the opposite party bank has to return the title deed and in not doing so, it clear amounts to deficiency of service on part of opposite party bank towards the complainant. The other contention is that complainant is that the complainant after discharge of loan amount addressed a letter dated 4-10-2001 to the opposite party for return of title deed, and the opposite party replied vide Ex.A1 dated 22-10-2001, stating the matter has been referred to Zonal office and after getting permission, they will release the title deeds. Thereafter, as there was no response from the opposite parties the complainant addressed letters vide Ex.A2 dated 4-10-2002, Ex.A3 dated 10-11-2002, Ex.A4 dated 19-5-2004, Ex.A5 dated 20-3-2007, and the opposite party vide Ex.A6 dated 2-8-2007 replied stating that the bank has exercised lien on the title deeds of which are kept with bank for housing loan for a civil case pending against the complainant for recovery of the amount, but to substantiate of this plea, the opposite party has not filed any cogent relevant substantiating material, regarding the pending suit or any lien document. Hence, the plea of opposite party remained as plea for plea sake without any substantiation. Hence, in the absence of any supporting material what appears is that the opposite party bank did not return the complainant’s title deeds and illegally retained them, on which the bank has no authority to do so. The complainant in support of his case relied on the decision of Tamilnadu State Commission reported in II 2005 CPJ Pg.89 between District Industries Centre Vs Mrs. Saraswati, where in the complainant availed loan by depositing title deed and entire loan amount was discharged by her, but to the deeds are not returned to her, it was held that the department should behave more responsible towards citizens and directed to return the title deeds to the complainant.
10. To sum up, the complainant’s title deeds are retained by the opposite party bank even after discharge of loan amount, hence, there appears every bonafides of the complainant in his hesitation on the said grievance and there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in that regard. The opposite parties in their written version, or sworn affidavit or written arguments, no where submitted that the complainant has not cleared the housing loan, but submits that they have retained the title deeds as they have lien over it, as a civil suit is pending. But to accept this contention of the opposite party no material is on record this shows the doscile conduct on part of the opposite party in not returning the title deed to the complainant even after discharge of loan amount. Hence, from the above it is clear that the opposite parties have no right to retain the title deeds of the complainant and are liable to return the same to the complainant.
11. The opposite parties have taken a plea in their written version that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant an employee of opposite party bank has availed loan from opposite party bank as a consumer and repaid it with interest. Hence, he is consumer under C.P.Act, 1986. The other plea of opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The opposite party vide Ex.A6 dated 2-8-2007 stated that they have exercise lien on the title deed, on that day they expressed their view for not returning the title deeds to the complainant. Hence, from that day limitation starts for the complainant. This complaint is filed on 11-10-2007. Hence, the complaint is not barred by limitation.
12. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above, and relying on the decision cited above, the complainant is perfectly remaining entitled to seek return of title deeds from the opposite party and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for suffered damage and mental agony , he faced at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of opposite party and costs of Rs.3,000/-.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return to the complainant the title deed bearing No.1143/1984 dated 2-6-1984 to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for suffered mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards costs, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall pay the above award with 9% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20th day of June, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Letter, dated 22-10-2001 of opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A2. Letter, dated 4-10-2002 of complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A3. Letter, dated 10-11-2002 of complainant to Assistant
General Manager, State Bank of India, Secunderabad.
Ex.A4. Letter, dated 19-5-2004 of the complainant to the
Assistant General Manager, SBI, Secunderabad.
Ex.A5. Letter, dated 20-3-2007 of complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A6. Reply letter, dated 2-8-2007 of opposite party to complainant.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: -Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite party.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties :
