COMPLAINT FILED: 26.02.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 02nd APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 480/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT R.M. Paramesh,<br /> S/o. Late M. Rama Krishna,<br /> Aged about 45 years,<br /> R/at No. 759/49/1,<br /> 4th Main Road, <br /> 4th Block, Rajajinagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 010.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Kiran Murgod)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The General Manager,<br /> The Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Limited,<br /> #741, 3rd Block, <br /> Rajajinagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 010.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant with a fond hope of development of his schedule property sought for sanction of a loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from OP on the deposit of title deeds by way of mortgage on 30.12.2007. Complainant was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- for obtaining legal opinion, after the clearance from the legal section OP came forward to sanction only Rs.10,00,000/-. Towards the registration of deed of memorandum of deposit of title deeds, OP collected another Rs.12,000/- and a deed came to be executed on 31.01.2008. Complainant agreed to repay the said loan with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. But thereafter OP to the reasons best known to it went on postponing in releasing the said sanctioned loan. Complainant was badly in need of the said loan to improve his schedule property. Because of the carelessness of the OP, he was put to greater hardship, both mental agony and financial loss. In the meantime as the neighbourer of the complainant has interfered in the peaceful enjoyment of the schedule property, he filed an Injunction Suit No. 1090/2008. OP insisted the complainant to withdraw the said suit. When complainant did not heed to the demand of the OP, again OP shown the hostile attitude. Being fed up with the said hostile attitude on the part of the OP, complainant got issued the legal notice on 16.04.2008 requesting OP either to release the sanctioned loan or cancel the deed of memorandum of deposit of title deeds. Again it went in vain. Under the circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though the OP was duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that with a fond hope of improving his schedule property, he thought of availing a loan from OP. In that regard he filed an application on 30.12.2007 seeking loan of Rs.12,00,000/-. OP collected Rs.2,000/- from complainant to obtain the legal opinion. Being satisfied with the title and possession of the schedule property OP agreed to release Rs.10,00,000/-. In order to register the memorandum of deposit of title deeds OP collected Rs.12,000/- as registration charges from the complainant. Then executed the memorandum on 31.01.2008 sanctioning Rs.10,00,000/- loan repayable with interest @ 12% p.a. The documents to that effect are produced.<br /> <br /> 5. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that though OP collected Rs.2,000/- for legal opinion and Rs.12,000/- towards registration of the deed of memorandum, but failed to release the said sanctioned loan. His repeated requests and demands made to OP went in futile. After the sanction of the loan, his neighbourer started interfering in his peaceful enjoyment of the property which he was renovating. Hence he is constrained to file a permanent injunction suit at O.S. No. 1090/2008. That dispute is nothing to do with the OP, but still to the reasons best known to the OP it insisted the complainant to withdraw the said suit, which is unjust and improper. Hence complainant is constrained to issue the legal notice on 16.04.2008 directing OP either to release the sanctioned loan or cancel the registered deed of memorandum of deposit of title deeds. The copy of the legal notice and postal acknowledgement are produced. Again there was no response.<br /> <br /> 6. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. As the complainant was badly in need of the financial assistance to complete his building he availed the said loan from the private financial firms, wherein he fetched approximate loss of Rs.1,00,000/- and other expenses of Rs.50,000/-. It is all because of the carelessness on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 7. The non-appearance of the OP evenafter the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. When OP has collected the legal opinion charges, registration charges, what made it to stop in releasing the said sanctioned loan is not known. The said suit is not with regard to the title. The schedule mortgaged property is still in tact and the complainant is the owner in possession of the same. If the neighbourer has interfered in his peaceful possession without any legal right complainant has got every right, interest to protect his property by seeking injunction against the said party. OP cannot interfere in his peaceful rights. <br /> <br /> 8. As a security to repay the said loan, complainant has deposited his title deeds. Being satisfied with the said title deeds OP sanctioned the loan, thereafter failed to release it. If OP feels that there is a dispute with regard to the title and it is not safe for them to release the loan, then atleast they would have got cancelled the registered memorandum of title as claimed by the complainant, in pursuance of the issuance of the legal notice. Again no steps are taken. These are the standing examples of deficiency in service. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. <br /> <br /> 9. Of course the claim of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and other expenses of Rs.50,000/- appears to be on higher side. Complainant can very well seek the proper relief before the Civil Court for the cancellation of the register of memorandum of title deeds, if so advised. But as far as the deficiency in service, mental agony and financial loss is concerned and having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 02nd day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />