Date of filing : 13-06-2011
Date of Disposal: 06-06-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L.,Male Member
Kum. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 6th day of June, 2012
C.C.NO. 111 /2011
Between:
Balam Lakshmidevi @ Umadevi
W/o Late Balam Sreeramulu
D.No.20/184-15-A, Hanumesh Nagar
Guntakal
Anantapur District. …. Complainan
Vs.
- The Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Konakondla Post,
Vajrakarur Mandal
Anantapur District.
- The Regional Manager
Syndicate Bank,
Regional Office, Srinivasa Nagar
Anantapur.
3. The Chairman
Syndicate Bank, Head Office,
Manipal – 576 104,
Udipi District, Karnataka State. ….. Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.Kesavaiah, Advocate for the complainant and Sri A.N.Guru Prasad, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and the 3rd opposite party called absent a and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Kum. M.Sreelatha,Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 directing them to return the original title deed deposited by the complainant’s husband after receiving loan amount and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and award costs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The husband of the complainant B.Sreeramulu availed loan from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 31-08-2009 for crop production vide loan account No.SKCC-1018/2007. The deceased B.Sreeramulu deposited the title deeds relating to Sy.No.215/B to avail the loan. The above said Sreeramulu died on 04-02-2010 leaving the complainant and her daughter as legal heirs. The complainant informed about the death of Sreeramulu to the opposite parties on 23-11-2010 with an intention to repay the loan amount. The 1st opposite party issued a Certificate of Loan amount of Rs.28,674/- on 23-11-2010. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 05-04-2011 to repay the loan amount but surprised to the complainant the loan account closed and no need to repay the loan amount as it was already paid. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 14-01-2011 requesting the opposite parties not to issue title deeds and pattadar Pass Book to third persons, no reply for the said notice; again issued legal notice on 07-04-2011 to the opposite parties 1 to 3. No reply for the same. The opposite parties failed to discharge their bounden duty and failed to return the title deeds. It is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to return the original title deeds of late B.Sreeramulu and also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony.
3. The 1st opposite party filed a counter denying the allegations in paras 4 to 7. It is true that the father of the deceased by name B.Venkatesulu has paid the entire loan amount. This opposite party contended that when they tried to bring the complainant to pay the entire loan amount due but whereabouts are not known to this opposite party. They pressured the surety to pay the amount. The surety informed the same to the father of the deceased and he paid the entire loan due by late B.Sreeramulu and received the title deeds and this opposite party obtained acknowledgment for the same. This opposite party denied that the documents received by the third party. He is not a stranger and the complaint is baseless. The complainant is not a consumer and the question mental agony does not arise and the present complaint is filed without any basis. This opposite party denied the allegation that on 23-11-2010 the complainant intimated the opposite party not to issue title deeds to some third person. It is mentioned that somebody approached the opposite party and enquired about loan balance of B.Sreeramulu and it is the bounden duty of Bank to give the details. The opposite party gave the details and there was no wrong on the opposite party. The opposite party also denied that the opposite party collected the loan amount from stranger and handed over title deeds without consent of complainant. There is no question of fraud, mischief and cheated the consumer. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter filed on behalf of the 1st opposite party.
5. The 3rd opposite party called absent.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3?
3. To what relief?
7. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed the evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 & 2, the 1st opposite party has filed evidence on affidavit and no documents have been marked.
8. Heard both sides.
9. POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainant argued that the husband of the complainant obtained crop loan from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 31-08-2009 by depositing title deeds and he died on 05-04-2010 leaving the complainant and her daughter as his legal heirs. The counsel for the complainant argued that after the death of B.Sreeramulu the complainant went to the 1st opposite party-Bank to pay the loan amount as they are legal heirs but the 1st opposite party Bank people told the complainant that the loan account closed and no need to pay the loan amount as it was already paid. The 1st opposite party stated in the affidavit that the complainant is not a consumer as the loan availed by the husband of the complainant and he died and no services were rendered by the Bank to the complainant.
10. As per section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act the services availed by the husband of the complainant, the legal heirs of late B.Sreenivasulu also come under the definition of complaint under section 2(1)(b) and also section 2(d) as consumer. As per section 2(d) the complainant comes under the purview of consumer. Hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
11. POINT NO.2 :- The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant informed the 1st opposite party about the death of her husband and also informed that she is ready to pay loan amount. The 1st opposite party Bank people issued Loan Certificate (Ex.A1) to the complainant on 23-11-2010. Then the complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 05-04-2011 to pay the loan amount due by her husband. The 1st opposite party people told the complainant that the loan account closed as the amount paid so no need to pay the amount. Then the complainant got issued legal notice dt.14-01-2011 (Ex.A2) requesting the 1st opposite party not to issue title deeds and pattadar pass book of late B.Sreeramulu to third persons and the same was received by the 1st opposite party on 17-01-2011(Ex.A3). There was no reply from the 1st opposite party. Then the complainant got issued another legal notice on 07-04-2011 (Ex.A4) to the opposite parties 1 to 3, for this also no reply from the opposite parties and the opposite parties failed to disclose the details of the person, who paid the loan amount, what is the relation to that person with late Sreeramulu. The opposite parties failed to give any information. They cheated the customers and it is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
12. The 1st opposite party filed chief affidavit stating that when the loan amount due by the deceased the opposite parties tried to know the whereabouts of his legal heirs, but the complainant was not available to inform the same. Then the 1st opposite party-Bank pressured the surety of the loan to repay the amount. The surety informed the father of the deceased i.e. B.Venkateswarulu. Then only the father of the deceased came forward and paid the entire loan amount and received title deeds and Pattadar Pass Book and the 1st opposite party has taken acknowledgment for the same. The father of the deceased is not a stranger and 3rd party. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. On perusal of the affidavit of the complainant, her husband availed loan on 31-08-2009 and her husband died on 05-04-2010. After the death of 7 months she approached the 1st opposite party on 23-11-2010 to clear the loan of her husband, the 1st opposite party gave loan certificate to the complainant. In that certificate (Ex.A1) it was mentioned that the complainant got information for court purpose.
14. The complainant kept quiet again for 2 months and issued legal notice (Ex.A2) dt.14-01-2011. The complainant has not made any efforts to clear the loan amount. Again the complainant issued a legal notice on 07-40-2011 (Ex.A4) stating that she approached the 1st opposite party on 05-04-2011 to repay the loan amount and get title deeds, Pattadar Pass Book but the Bank people closed the account as loan amount paid and account closed and title deeds and Pattadar Pass Book were handed over to third party without her consent.
15. It is general to the Bank and financial institutions that immediate to the death of principal borrower, they pressure the surety to repay the loan amount. The Bank and financial institutions look over their loan clearance they have not even bothered who is paying the amount whether related to borrower or not.
16. In this case after the death of B.Sreeramulu i.e. principal borrower the 1st opposite party pressurized the surety to repay the loan amount, then only the father of the deceased paid the amount and received the title deeds and pattadar pass book.
17. Though the complainant mentioned in her affidavit that she made representation to the opposite parties not to issue title deeds and pattadar Pass Book to third party on 23-10-201 the complainant failed to file the representation given to the opposite parties. She filed only the loan extract given by the opposite parties in that extract also it was clear that information obtained by the complainant for court purpose. The 1st opposite party failed to inform the date when the 1st opposite party received the loan amount from the father of the deceased.
18. It is not the duty of the Bank not to receive the loan amount as the amount paid by the 3rd party. In this case, it is clear from Ex.A1 that the complainant approached the 1st opposite party after knowing the fact that the amount paid by the relatives of deceased and obtained title deeds and pattadar pass book as per the legal notice dt.14-01-2011 (Ex.A2) as the complainant has got apprehension about the relatives of late B.Sreeramulu. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this point answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
19. POINT NO.3 - The counsel for the complainant argued to direct the opposite parties to return the title deeds and pattadar pass book which was deposited by the complainant’s husband at the time of availing loan and award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and costs as the opposite parties cheated the complainant.
20. About the return of the title deeds, it is not in the custody of the opposite parties and it was handed over to the father of the deceased as per their counter, hence the opposite parties not in a position to return the title deeds as they are not in their custody. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony. It is the duty of the legal heirs to clear the loan after the death of borrower. There were no bonafide efforts on behalf of the complainant about repayment of the loan. Hence, the complainant has not suffered any mental agony and not entitled any amount towards mental agony.
21. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 6th day of June, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT ,
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A1 – Photo copy of Certificate dt.23-11-2010 issued by the 1st opposite party.
2. Ex.A2 - Office copy of legal notice dt.14-01-2011 got issued by the complainant to the
1st Opposite party.
3. Ex.A3 - Postal acknowledgement signed by the 1st opposite party.
4. Ex.A4 - Office copy of notice dt.07-04-2011 got issued by the complainant to the
Opposite parties 1 to 3.
5. Ex.A5 - Postal Receipts for sending notices to the opposite parties 1 to 3.
6. Ex.A6 - Postal acknowledgments of the opposite parties.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
- NIL -
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
Typed by JPNN
