CC Filed on 01.02.2010<br /> Disposed on 13.10.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 13th day of October 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 16/2010<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S. Gururaj @ Lakshmikantaiah,<br /> Son of Late Sriramappa,<br /> Hindu Major,<br /> Residing at Kantanakunte Village,<br /> Kasaba Hobli, Mallatahalli Post,<br /> Doddaballapur Taluk – 561 203.<br /> Bangalore Rural District.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.S. Krishna Murthy) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> The Branch Manager,<br /> Central Bank of India,<br /> Alakapura Branch,<br /> Gowribidanur Taluk – 561 208.<br /> Chikkaballapur District.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. T.S. Venkatesh & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to release the loan amount of Rs.13,80,000/- to complainant which was sanctioned and to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to him with costs and interest, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant is an agriculturist. He applied for agricultural loan with OP.1 for cultivating grapes and development of lands and produced the required documents and security. After following the required verification and other procedures for grant of loan, the OP granted a sum of Rs.13,80,000/- on the mortgage security of Sy. No. 58/1 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas including karab and Sy. No.139 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas situated at Arakunta Village, Gowribidanur Taluk belonging to complainant. On 16.07.2009 the complainant executed simple mortgage deed in favour of OP Bank mortgaging the said Sy. Nos. 58/1 and Sy. No. 139. The first installment of loan agreed to be released was Rs.4,00,000/-. On 21.07.2009 a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was released and transferred to the S.B. account of complainant bearing No. 8155 with OP Bank. It is alleged that the Manager of OP Bank took signatures on withdrawal slips and asked the complainant to give illegal gratification before payment of the cash. It is alleged that since the complainant did not respond for that illegal demand the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- has been held up. He alleged that inspite of making complaints to higher authorities and issue of legal notice he could not get the first installment of loan amount. He alleged that he sustained huge loss and could not raise the grapes on his field, inspite of he incurring huge amount for preparatory work and he was forced to obtain private loan, etc., Therefore he filed the present complaint on 01.02.2010. <br /> <br /> 3. OP appeared and contested the claim of complainant and filed version. It is contended that a third person by name R. Narayanaswamy gave a representation dated 20.07.2009 which was received by OP on 21.07.2009, subsequent to releasing of Rs.4,00,000/- towards first installment of the loan and crediting the same to the S.B. account of complainant on the same day. Further it is contended that on going through the contents of the said representation, OP withheld payment of Rs.4,00,000/- to complainant and asked the complainant to clarify regarding the objection raised by that third party R. Narayanaswamy. Further it is contended that instead of clearing the doubts regarding the title of complainant over the mortgaged property bearing Sy. No. 58/1, the complainant filed this case and made frivolous allegation against the Manager of OP. Therefore OP prayed for dismissal of complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed affidavits in support of their respective contentions and also filed the relevant documents. <br /> <br /> 5. The argument was heard in part. We found there was conflict in the stand taken by complainant in his reply notice dated 05.08.2009 got issued to the legal notice dated 27.07.2009 issued on behalf of R. Narayanaswamy and in reply notice dated 20.11.2009 got issued to OP. In the reply notice dated 05.08.2009 the complainant had mentioned that there was no sale agreement dated 20.01.2007. Whereas in his reply dated 20.11.2009 he had admitted the existence of such sale agreement and had further stated that the claim of R. Narayanaswamy and Sheela Devi were settled and thereafter the registered sale deed was taken from the vendor Krishnamurthy in respect of Sy. No. 58/1. The complainant was asked to stick to one line of argument if necessary by carrying out the necessary amendment to his pleadings and evidence. Thereafter the complainant remained absent through out. Finally the case is taken as heard and it is posted for orders. <br /> <br /> 6. The third party-R. Narayanaswamy in his representation dated 20.07.2009 addressed to the Branch Manager of OP.1 had stated that Sy. No. 58/1 was agreed to be purchased by complainant and himself and one Smt. Sheela Devi jointly for a consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- per acre totally amounting to Rs.9,58,750/- and the earlier owner of the said land by name Krishna Murthy and themselves had executed the agreement for sale and that on the date of sale agreement a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid by them to the earlier owner, etc., The said representation accompanied the xerox copy of agreement for sale dated 20.01.2007 alleged to have been entered between these persons and the original owner. <br /> <br /> 7. It is admitted that subsequently the same Sy. No. 58/1 was purchased by complainant alone under registered sale deed dated 05.03.2007 and further it is found that the other two intending purchasers named in sale agreement were not parties or consenting witnesses to the said sale deed and even the said sale deed did not refer the earlier alleged agreement dated 20.01.2007. As already noted above in the reply notice dated 05.08.2009 the complainant stated that no such sale agreement dated 20.01.2007 was in existence. However it is found that in the reply notice dated 20.11.2009 the complainant admitted the existence of such sale agreement and stated that the claim of R. Narayanaswamy and Sheela Devi was settled before taking the registered sale deed. Therefore we asked the complainant to stick to any one line of argument regarding the agreement for sale in question. Thereafter the complainant or his Counsel did not appear.<br /> <br /> 8. If the agreement for sale is a genuine document, one can say that there is no undisputable marketable title to complainant over Sy. No. 58/1 unless the other two intending purchasers mentioned in the agreement for sale gave their consent to the sale deed executed only in the name of complainant. Therefore we think the withholding of release of loan by OP cannot be said to be an illegal act. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 13th day of October 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />