Date of filing : 10-08-2009 Date of order : 28-06-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 182/09 Dated this, the 28th day of June 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Anantheshwara Pai, S/o.B.Mohandas Pai, R/at Bajakudlu House, } Complainant Po.Perla, Kasaragod Taluk & District. (Adv.A.Kumaran Nair, Kasaragod) The Branch Manager, Syndicate bank, Perla Branch, } Opposite party Po.Perla, Kasaragod.Dt. 671552 (Adv. Sadananda Kamatha, Kasaragod. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT In nutshell the case of the complainant is that he availed two loans from opposite party Bank and it was closed on 30-04-2009. But Opposite Party refused to hand over the title deed of the landed properties belonged to him. That was given as security at the time of availing the loan. The reason stated by opposite party is that the mother of the complainant had defaulted the repayment of 2 loans availed by her with sufficient security to which the complainant is a guarantor. According to complainant the loans availed by his mother being agricultural loans, she is entitled for the agriculture debt relief packages announced by State & Central Governments. Hence opposite party is not legally entitled to withhold the title deeds deposited by the complainant. Therefore the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 2. The contention of opposite party is that the complainant as a co-obligent to one Smt. Sudha M.Pai has availed loans from the opposite party as per loan No.FLSTK 10/2007 and SKCC 20/2007 and these are not been repaid as agreed by the complainant or loanee and a sum of 5,09,583 rupees is due as on 12-5-2009 from her. Since being a co-obligent (surety) to aforesaid loans complainant is indirectly liable to repay the same to the Bank. The opposite party is well within it’s right to withhold the title deeds of the complainant till repayment or regularization of the said loan. Further Smt. Sudha M Pai the mother of the complainant is not entitled for any benefits under Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme of Central or State Governments as she is not eligible under the scheme. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit reiterating what is stated in the complaint. Exts A1 & A2 marked. On the side of Sri. S.K. Ramachandra Bhat the Branch Manager of opposite party Bank filed affidavit. Both sides heard documents perused. 4. The only issue to be considered in this complaint is whether the opposite party have any right to with hold the title deeds of the complainant even after receiving the entire loan dues? 5. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The learned counsel for opposite party Sri. Sadananda Kamath argues that the Bank being a financial institution had general lien over the documents of the complainant. Admittedly Sec 171 of the Indian Contract Act stipulates the right of general lien by a banking institution. Relying on the decision reported in 1988 in LJ page 308 the learned counsel for opposite party contends that even without any agreement opposite party can retain the title deeds given as security. The Hon’ble Apex Court also have this view in the case reported in AIR 1992 SC 1066, 1992 (2) SCC 330 in the case of Syndicate Bank V. Vijayakumar. Therefore we accept the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party and hold that the opposite party had the right to retain the title deeds given as security until the discharge of the loan availed by his mother as the principal debtor for which he is a gurantor. It does not constitute any deficiency in service. Therefore complaint fails and hence dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.06-05-2009 Copy of lawyer notice. A2. 17-06-2009 Copy of Reply notice. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
