BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., Honb’le President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, M.A., L.L.B. Hon’ble Lady Member
Wednesday the 18th day of October, 2006
C.C.No.32/2006
Pratap Rangaiah Setty, S/o. Ramalingaiah Setty, Hindu, aged 60 years, Fair Price Shop Dealer,
R/o. H.No.12/144, Vasanth Nagar,Kurnool.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, A.D.B.
Yemmiganur, Kurnool district.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Gondiparla, Kurnool district.
…Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri. N. Ramachandra Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant, Sri. D. Mallikarjuna Advocate, Kurnool, for Opposite Party No.1 and Sri. D.A. Anees Ahamed Opposite party No.2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
As per Smt. C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to return the original title deed and link deed relating to building bearing number:1/721 or to award compensation for the permanent loss, ordering to sanction Rs.10,00,000/- as loan by opposite party No.1 to the complainant, costs and compensation 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 availed a loan in the year 1976, while availing the loan as per terms and conditions of the bank the complainant deposited his original title deeds along with link documents with opposite party No.1. Before to the sanctioning the loan the opposite party No.1 verified the original deeds and agreed to sanction loan for construction of building after depositing the original title deeds pertaining to the proposed bank building with them. The complainant completed construction as per requirements of opposite party No.1 and the same was occupied by opposite party No.1 as a tenant and a lease deed was executed in between the complainant and opposite party No.1, as per lease agreement the rent for the building was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per month and it should be remitted to the loan account, the said loan was completed, thereafter, since 1993, the complainant demanded for return of original title deeds relating to the complainant’s building so that he can avail loan facility by depositing the title deeds. But the opposite party No.1 neither gave loan facility in their other branches nor returned the title deeds. The complainant suffered lot of mental agony because of vindictive and recalcitrant attitude of the opposite parties, hence resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied under following documents viz., (1)legal notice dated:06.01.2001 by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.1 (2)Postal receipt for sending Ex.A1 (3) Postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A1 (4)Affidavit dated 14.12.2002 executed by Branch Manager Yemmiganur (5)Order dt:13.02.2003 of Banking Ombudsman(A.P) in complaint No:19/2002/03 (6)letter dated:12.10.2004 of Branch Manager, S.B.I, A.D.B, Yemmiganur to the complainant besides to the Sworn Affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complainant averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1, to A6 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant, caused interrogatories to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice to this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared through their standing counsel and filed separate written versions:?
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 admits the complainant’s building was occupied by their office and the title deeds are deposited with them at the time of sanctioning the loan for construction of said building and submits that on 14.09.1991 the opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to opposite party No.2 along with documents mention there in and sent the said letter to opposite party No.2 along with documents and the same was received by opposite party No.2, hence, the said documents are with opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 further submits that the sons of the complainant filed a suit O.S.No.88/99 in the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni for partition and separate possession in respect of joint family properties and the building bearing Door No:1/722 is also subject matter in that partition suit and the decree passed declaring sons of the complainant are entitled to 2to 3 share in the joint family properties. The opposite party No.1 has issued an affidavit dated 14.12.2002 as to the original title deeds are not traced in the year 1991 itself and complainant availed loan with opposite party No.1 by depositing certified copies of registered document No.992/1971 and 1813/1962 and availed loan. Therefore, the complainant did not sustained any loss and did not cause any mental agony. The written version of opposite party No.2 submits that he is not aware of the facts of this case of the complainant and there is no cause of action against him and the opposite parties No.1&2 seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The opposite parties in substantiation of their case relied on the following documents viz:(1)Xerox copy of letter dated 14.09.1991 addressed to Branch Manager, S.B.I, Gondiparla by Branch Manger, S.B.I, Yemmiganur (2) Xerox copy of notice dated:29.08.1991 of complainant to the Manager S.B.I, A.D.B, Yemmiganur. (3) Ledger extract of loan amount of complainant bearing No.05193/ 006194 (4) Ledger extract of loan amount No.01090/0006194 of complainant.(5)office copy of legal notice dt:06.03.2006 caused by complainant’s sons to opposite party No.1 (6) Xerox copy of reply notice dated 25.02.2006 issued by opposite party No.2 counsel to the complainant’s counsel. (7)Office copy of legal notice dated 10.03.2006 of opposite party No.1 to the complainant’s counsel, besides to the Sworn Affidavit opposite party No.1 and 2 and the above documents are not marked as Ex.B1 to B7 for its appreciation in this case the opposite parties 1 and 2 caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by complainant.
7. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
8. The case of the complainant is that he borrowed a loan from opposite party No.1 Bank by depositing title deeds and link deeds and his grievance is that he discharged the loan amount but the opposite parties failed and neglected to return his title deeds. But as against to it the written version of opposite party No.1 submits that opposite party No.1 bank addressed a letter dated:14.09.1991 to opposite party No.2 bank along with documents of the complainant and the same are received by opposite party No.2 bank. The said letter is marked as Ex.B1, the Ex.B1 envisages the transfer of complainant’s account no:175 to opposite party No.2 Branch enclosing five documents viz:(1)Sworn Affidavit dt:28.06.1988 (2)E.C.No:668/1988 dated:21.05.1988, (3)certified copy of document No:992/1971,(4)certified copy of document No:1813/1962 and (5) Lawyers opinion dt:02.06.1988. The said documents were held as security for over draft limit sanctioned to the complainant and same are sent to opposite party No.2 bank to avail loan facility and the said documents are received by opposite party No.2 bank on 14.09.1991, hence opposite party No.1 alleges that opposite party No.2 is liable for return of documents to the complainant. But the documents sent in the said letter are certified copies and not original documents which the complainant sought for return and the said certified copies are held as security for over draft limit and not as security for sanctioning loan to construct building of the complainant. Hence, the plea of the opposite party No.1 that documents are sent to opposite party No.2 is unjustifiable and cannot be accepted.
9. The opposite party No.1 Bank submitted that their Branch Manager had issued an affidavit on 14.12.2002 vide Ex.A4, the Ex.A4 is the affidavit dated:14.12.2002 executed by Branch Manager, Yemmiganur for State Bank of India A.D.B, its says that the title deeds relating to the property bearing door No:1/721 deposited by Sri. Pratap Rangaiah Setty S/o. P. Ramalingaiah Setty with State Bank of India A.D.B, Yemmiganur are not traceable in banks records and could not be delivered to Sri. Pratap Rangaiah Setty after closer of loan. In the light of the above admission by opposite party No.1 Branch Manager as to the title deeds of the complainant not traceable in their records, it is clear that the said title deeds are not returned to the complainant which is sufficient for the complainant to suffer immence mental agony.
10. The present case is the filed by the complainant for return of the title deeds as it is clear from the facts of the case and Ex.A4 that title deeds are not returned to the complainant as they are not traceable in opposite party No.1 bank records and it appears that the opposite party No.1 bank did not take any steps to return the title deeds to the complainant within a reasonable time. Hence there is deficiency of service on part of opposite party to the complainant therefore, the relief of the complainant for return of title deeds cannot be awarded.
11. Regarding the other reliefs the complainant has not established that he sustained loss in not getting the title deeds from bank. The opposite party No.1 denied the genuineness of the offer by a finance company to finance the complainant for the purchase of three tractors by depositing original title deeds, except taking a plea in his complainant averments the complainant has not filed any affidavit of the financier in support of his plea. As the complainant has not let in any evidence in this aspect, it cannot be said that the complainant has sustained loss for not returning title deeds hence no damages can be awarded.
12. As no cause of action was made out against opposite party No.2 the case against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
13. Now the question is to what relief the complainant is entitled to as the relief for return of title deeds cannot granted as the title deeds are said to have been not traceable as per Ex.A4, and in view of that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards compensation for the deficiency of opposite party No.1 bank in not returning the deposited title deeds to the complainant. As the complainant was driven to the Forum for Redressal the complainant is entitle to costs of Rs.1,000/-.
14. In the result the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party No.l to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service in not returning the title deeds to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1,000/- within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay 12% interest per annum on the supra awarded amount.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 18th day of October, 2006.
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 Office copy of legal notice dated:06.01.2006.
Ex.A2 Postal Receipt No:5820.
Ex.A3 Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.A4 Affidavit dated:14.12.2002.
Ex.A5 Order of the banking Ombudsman (A.P) in complaint NoL19/2002-03.
Ex.A6 letter, dated:12.10.2004 of Branch Manager, S.B.I. A.D.B., Branch
Yemmiganur.
List of Exhibits marked for the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Xerox copy of letter, dated:14.09.1991 addressed to Branch Manger,
S.B.I. Gondiparla by Branch Manager, S.B.I., A.D.B., Branch Yemmiganur.
Ex.B2 Xerox copy of notice dated:29.08.1991 of complainant to Manager,
S.B.I. A.D.B., Branch Yemmiganur.
Ex.B3 Ledger extract of loan account of complainant bearing
No:01593/006194.
Ex.B4 Ledger extract of loan Account No:01090/006194 of complainant.
Ex.B5 Office copy of legal notice dated:06.03.2006 censed for complainant to
Branch Manager S.B.I. A.D.B, Branch Yemmiganur.
Ex.B6 Xerox copy of reply notice dated:25.02.2006 caused to the complainant
by the opposite parties counsel.
Ex.B7 Office copy of legal notice dated:10.03.2006 of opposite party to
complainant with postal receipt acknowledgement.
MEMBER PRESIDENT.
Copy to:
Sri. N. Ramachandra Advocate, Kurnool.
Sri. D. Mallikarjuna Advocate, Kurnool.
Sri. D. A.Anees Ahamed Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
