BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 02/2014
THIS THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) PRESIDENT (In charge)
2. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Sri. G. Satyanarayana S/o. Vishnumurthy,
aged 34 years, Occ:agri., R/o. shanker Nagar Camp, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank
Branch, Sindhanoor.
CLAIM :- For to direct to repay deposited amount of Rs.
7,50,000/- to the complainant and damages of Rs. 25,000/- be awarded in favour of the complainant.
Date of institution :- 08-01-2014.
Notice served :- 10-01-2014.
Date of disposal :- 30-09-2014.
Complainant represented by Sri. Prasanna Sharma, Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. V.Sateesh, Advoate.
*****
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Gururaj, President (In charge) :-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant G.Satyanarayana against the Opposite Bank U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, for to direct the opposite to return the deposit amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- along with damages of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant in respect of deficiency of service.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, the complainant is an agriculturist and permanent resident of Shanker Nagar Camp in Manvi Taluka With an intention to purchase the agriculture land had deposited a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- at his account with the Respondent’s Bank bearing A/c. No. 170100400. That after, the complainant had left an idea of purchasing the land and as such he was intended to draw the said amount and accordingly he approached the Respondent’s Bank for withdrawing the said deposited amount. For which the Respondent’s Bank did not allow the complainant to withdraw the amount without any good cause or reason. The complainant on 11-07-2013 got issued the legal notice to the Respondent’s Bank calling upon it to refund the deposited amount laying in the complainant’s account. Though the notice was served on the Respondent’s Bank neither the Respondent’s Bank refund the amount nor replied the notice. The act of the Respondent’s Bank caused serious finance set back, inconvenience to the complainant and illegal detention of an amount. Further it is contended that the very act of the complainant is totally contributory, arbitrary and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent’s Bank Hence this complaint filed against the Respondent’s Bank for the reliefs as sought for in the complaint.
3. In response to service of notice the Respondent’s Bank appeared through Sri. Sateesh.V. Advocate and filed the written statement contending that, the complainant has deposited an amount of RS. 7,50,000/- in the suspense account of the Respondent’s Bank and was not deposited in the account of the complainant as contended by the complainant in his complaint. The account number 170100400 is a suspense account of the Respondent’s Bank maintained in the Branch. The amount deposited by the complainant for to purchase of the agriculture land are all false and baseless.
That one L.Satyanarayana S/o. Krishnamurthy and his wife Smt. Laxmi W/o. Satyanarayana of Sindhanoor village were the owners in possession of agriculture lands bearing Sy.Nos. 124/P8 measuring 4 acres, 124/P3 measuring 3 acres 30 guntas, Sy.No. 124/P2 measuring 4 acres and Sy.No. 124/P9 measuring 4 acres all situated at Balaganoor village, Tq. Sindhanoor. They availed the crop loan of Rs, 3,00,000/- in 2007 and further availed development loans of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the year 2008 from the Respondent’s Bank by offering as a security for the said loans and accordingly they have executed registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the Respondent’s Bank on 11-07-2007 vide document NO. 3586/07-08 and registered with Sub Registrar Sindhanoor. Further the above named L.Satyanarayana and Smt. L. Laxmi further mortgaged the said lands in favour of the Respondent’s Bank on 31-01-2008 as per document NO. 10328/07-08 and registered with Sub Registrar Sindhanoor.
Further it is contended that, the said L.Satyanarayana and L.Laxmi did not repay the loan amount to the Respondent’s Bank as agreed the bank officials have made repeated requests for to make repay the said loans but they did not repay the loan amount to the Respondent’s Bank. During the December-2012 the Respondent’s Bank came to know that, the above named borrowers without clearing the dues of the Respondent’s Bank and without their consent have sold the said agriculture lands bearing Sy.Nos. 124/P3, 124/P8, 124/P2 and 124/P9 to the complainant and his brother by name G.Venkateshwarrao through registered sale deed on 03-11-2010.
Immediately after noticing such fraudulent transactions the Respondent’s Bank approached the borrowers L.Satyanarayana and L.Laxmi and threatened to take action after that, the said L.Satyanarayana came to the branch with the complainant on 02-01-2013 and stated that the complainant and his brother have not paid the consideration amount to him and the complainant and his brother have assured to pay the same to the Respondent’s Bank for discharge of their liability etc., Further the complainant and borrower L.Satyanarayana were informed that the total outstanding is Rs.17,50,000/- there afterwards the borrower L.Satyanarayana gave a letter in writing wherein he proposed that an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- would be paid today and the remaining amount with accrued interest etc., would be paid in due course etc., there afterwards only he requested the Respondent’s Bank to issue No due certificate to the complainant. In pursuance of said proposal a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to the Respondent’s Bank and sought time to pay the balance amount therefore the said amount was kept in suspense account of the Respondent’s Bank. It was agreed that, after payment of the remaining amount the said amount has to be adjusted to the loan accounts and issue No Due Certificate etc., Therefore the said amount was kept under the suspense account.
Further it is contended that, the borrower L.Satyanarayana paid a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- on 05-02-2013. As the borrower and complainant failed to clear the entire due of the Respondent’s Bank the Respondent’s Bank on 27-03-2013 adjusted a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the crop loan account NO. 18058380001956 and further adjusted a sum of Rs.2,16,712.51/- to the said account on 30-05-2013 further a sum of Rs.5,33,287.49/- was adjusted to the development loan account No. 18058540002436. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 9,90,000/- was adjusted to the loan account . The complainant has concealed all these true facts before this forum and has filed the false complaint in collusion with borrower L.Satyanarayana and L.Laxmi.
It is further contended that, the complainant and his brother have purchased the lands from the borrowers of the Respondent’s Bank which have been mortgaged to the Respondent’s Bank without clearing the dues and without the consent of the Respondent’s Bank, those sale deeds are subject to the liabilities of Respondent’s Bank as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore the Respondent’s Bank is entitled to proceed against the complainant and the lands so purchased by him for the realization of its due amount. If at all the complainant is intending to purchase the lands etc., absolutely their arises no question and scope for him to deposit in the suspense account of the Respondent’s Bank and he would have opted to deposit in the SB A/c. maintained by him with any office banker. The complaint is not holding any account with the Respondent’s Bank and deposited the amount in suspense account and it is the bank account. Hence the complainant is not a consumer and therefore the Hon’ble authority have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Under above all these reasons and circumstances. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent’s Bank. Accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit as his examination in chief he has noted as PW-1 and has got marked (02) documents at Ex.P.1 & P.2. In rebuttal the Respondent’s Bank have filed the affidavit/chief examination of A.Murali Krishna Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Branch Sindhanoor and got marked (05) documents at Ex.R.1to Ex.R-5.
5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that the Respondent’s Bank is negligent and deficient in service in not allowing the complainant to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from Suspense Account of the Respondent’s Bank as alleged?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
6. Our finding on the above points are as under:-
1. In the Negative
2. In the negative.
3. As per final order.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
7. It is the case of the complainant that he has deposited an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- on 07-01-2013 in A/c.No. 170100400 of Respondent’s Bank as per Ex.P-1 with an intention to purchase agriculture land after changing his mind he wanted to withdraw the same from the Respondent’s Bank but Respondent’s Bank has not allowed to withdraw the same. It is the case of the Respondent’s Bank that, the said amount has been deposited by the complainant in suspense account of the bank and the complainant and his brother have purchased the land bearing Sy.Nos. 124/P3 and 124/P8, 124/P2 and 124/P9 respectively through registered sale deed dt 03-11-2010 from one L.Satyanarayana S/o. Krishnamurthy and his wife L.Laxmi W/o. L.Satyanarayana of Sindhanoor village. Earlier to this sale proceedings L. Satyanarayana and Laxmi have availed the crop loan of Rs.3,00,000/- in 2007 and development loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the year 2008 by offering as a security for the said loans and also both have executed registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the bank. After coming to know about the sale proceedings of the borrower L.Satyanarayana and L.Laxmi the bank officials have approached the said borrowers and forced them to make the payment of due amount of loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- the said L.Satyanaryana along with complainant approached the bank then the bank officials informed them that the total outstanding was Rs.17,50,000/- and the same is to be paid by the borrower. There afterwards the L.Satyanarayana the borrower by giving a letter dt. 02-01-2013 proposed that an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- would be paid on that day and remaining amount with accrued interest etc., would be paid in due course etc., thus Rs.7,50,000/- has been paid on that day to the Respondent’s Bank and sought time to pay the balance amount. Therefore the said amount was kept in suspense account of the Respondent’s Bank not in the account of the complainant. Hence the said amount was not released in the name of the complainant when the complainant was approached the Respondent’s Bank.
8. We have perused the Ex.P-1 FD Receipt of Respondent’s Bank pertaining to the account no. 170100400 dt. 02-01-2013. The said receipt is clearly speaks that, the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- has been deposited in suspense account in the name of G.Satyanarayana as contended by the Respondent’s Bank. Further we have perused the document Ex.R-1 simple mortgage deed Ex.R-2 copy of the sale deed Document No.7280/10-11 dt. 03-11-2010 executed by L.Satyanarayana in favour of complainant G.Satyanrayana and Ex.R-3 another sale deed bearing Document No.7278/10-11 dt. 03-11-2010 executed by L.Laxmi in favour of G.Venkateshwarrao brother of complainant. On perusal of the said Ex.R-1 it is noticed that, L.Satyanarayana and L.Laxmi have executed the simple mortgage deed in favour of Respondent’s Bank in respect of agriculture land bearing Sy.No.124/P8 4 acres, 124/P3 3 acres 30 guntas 124/P2 4 acres and 124/P9 4 acres for the purpose of agriculture development loan on 11-07-2007. Further we have perused the document Ex.R-4 the letter dt. 02-01-2013 written by L.Satyanrayana to the Chief Manager, Respondent’s Bank wherein it is clearly mentioned that, he availed the crop loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 24-09-2007 and agriculture development loan of Rs.7,00,000/- on 30-05-2008 and agreed to repay them in installment but due to failure of monsoon and crop loss he was not paid the said loan amount and he was totally due approximately to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/- to the Respondent’s Bank as on 02-01-2013 and out of which he has paid Rs.7,50,000/- and agreed to pay remaining amount with accrued interest later on. Further we have perused the Ex.R-5 the Encumbrance Certificate issued by Sub-Registrar, Sindhanoor on 22-06-2014. The said Ex.R-5 is also clearly speaks that, L.Satyanarayana and L.Laxmi have availed loan from the Respondent’s Bank and also executed the sale deed in favour of complainant and his brother.
9. The counsel for the complainant in his argument contended that, the said amount of Rs.7,50,000/- has been deposited by the complainant as FD and not in the suspense account as contended by the Respondent’s Bank. Further he has also contended that, the said amount has been deposited for to purchase the agriculture lands, but to prove his version he has not produced any documents to show that, he has deposited the amount on such condition and why that his amount of Rs.7,50,000/- has been deposited in the suspense account as contended by the Respondent’s Bank. On the other hand, the counsel for the Respondent’s Bank vehemently argued that, in collusion with the borrower L.Satyanarayana & L.Laxmi the complainant had created a false story against the Respondent’s Bank and trying to dupe the Bank.
10. It is true that, Ex.R-1 the mortgage deed the L.Satyanarayana and L.Laxmi have availed the loan by mortgaging the agriculture lands bearing Sy.Nos. 124/P8 4 acres, 124/P3 3 acres 30 guntas 124/P2 4 acres and 124/P9 4 acres and it is also true that, on perusal of Ex.R-2 & Ex.R-3 the said lands have been purchased by complainant and his brother G.Venkateshwarrao further it is also true that, as per Ex.R-4 the L.Satyanarayana has admitted that, he has due to the Bank approximately to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/- in respect of said agriculture land loans and sold the lands for an amount of Rs.16,86,000/- and out of which an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- has been paid by the purchaser/complainant and same has been paid to the Bank. Under these circumstances, it is proved that, the complainant and his brother have purchased the mortgaged land which are offered as a security and paid an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.16,86,000/- and same has been accepted by the Bank and deposited in their suspense account but not in the FD account of the complainant as contended by the complainant. Hence under these circumstance we do not find any reasons to believe that, the Respondent’s Bank has made any illegality in not releasing the amount and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent’s Bank and therefore Point No- 1 is answered in the negative.
POINT NO.2:-
11. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent’s Bank so the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-09-14.)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Member. (In charge) President,
District Consumer Forum, Raichur District Consumer Forum, Raichur
