Karnataka

Kolar

CC/9/2015

Kempanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Karthik.B.Y

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 05/03/2015

Date of Order: 05/08/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 05^th DAY OF AUGUST 2015

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 09 OF 2015

Kempanna,

S/o. Shamanna,

Aged About 53 years,

R/at: Gidaganahalli Village,

Manchenahalli Hobli,

Gauribidnur Taluk,

Chickballapur District.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. B.Y.Karthik, Advocate)                ….  Complainant.

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

The Karnataka State Co-operative

Agricultural and Rural Development

Bank, Ground Floor, TSP Road,

Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560 018.

 

2) The Manager,

The Chickballapur District

Co-operative Agricultural and

Rural Development Bank,

Behind Ambedkar Bhavan,

Old Bus Stand, Chickballapur

Taluk & District, Pin Code-562101.

 

3) The Manager,

The Gauribidnur Taluk,

Co-operative Agricultural and

Rural Development Bank,

Opp. To Government Hospital,

Gauribidnur Taluk & District,

Pin Code-561210.

(OP Nos.1 to 3 are represented by

Sriyuth. K.Manjunath, Advocate)                   …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted the complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought, relief of issuance of directions to the Ops, to handover registered sale deed dated: 02.11.2009 in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.142, measuring 01 acre 09 guntas situated at Pura Village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gauribidnur Taluk, Chickballapur District, which was registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gauribidnur, vide Part-5 bearing registration Number/document No.GBD-1-0008-2011-12 and stored in CD No. GBDD50 to him and for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, hardship, loss of interest and inconvenience suffered.

02.   The facts in brief:-

It is contended by the complainant that, he had approached the OP-3 to avail loan for developing his agricultural land.  And that the OP-3 had promised to extend the loan only after obtaining documents of title to any immovable property owned by him (the complainant), so as to creating a simple mortgage by depositing of title.  And that on compliance he was given loan of Rs.3,83,600/-.

(a)    It is further contended that, as such, prior to availing of the said loan, he had deposited with the OP-3 the original registered sale deed dated: 02.11.2009 in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.142, measuring 01 acre 09 guntas situated at Pura Village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gauribidnur Taluk, Chickballapur District, which was registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gauribidnur, vide Part-5 bearing registration Number/document No.GBD-1-0008-2011-12 which was also stored in CD No. GBDD50 as noted above.

(b) Further it is contended that, he had repaid the entire dues by 12.11.2014.  And that Ops had also issued loan clearance certificate.  And that they had asked him to appear before the OP-3 to get registered mortgage release deed.  And that accordingly the same was executed on the said day by OP-3 which came to be registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gouribidnur in Book No.1, Document No. GBD-1-05495-2014-15 also stored in CD No.GBDD96.

(c)    Further it is contended that, despite compliance of repayment of the said dues which ultimately resulted in getting mortgage release deed executed, the Ops failed to return the said original title document which was deposited at the time of availing the loan.

(d)    Further it is contended that, he did approach OP-3 nearly twenty times.  And that he was only made to wait for long hours.  And that in-spite of several such visits OP-3 did not handover the said original document.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint seeking above set out reliefs.

(e)    With list dated: 03.03.2015 the complainant has submitted the following four documents:-

(i)     Notice and Release Deed

(ii)    Camp receipt

(iii)   Bank Challens

(iv)   Legal Notice

03.   OP Nos.1 to 3 having put in their appearance through their learned counsel have submitted written version resisting claim of the complainant in toto.  However it is conceded that there was granting of the said loan in a sum of Rs.3,83,600/- which stood repaid.  Whereas rest of the averments inclusive of deposit of the said original title deed have been contested.  But execution of the said mortgaged release deed dated: 12.11.2014 on the part of the OP-3 in favour of the complainant is conceded.

(a)    Further it is contended that as the complainant had raised the said loan from the OP-3, of them OP Nos.1 and 2 are not responsible in as much as, they had only sanctioned the loan but had not received any documents from the complainant.

(b)    Further it is specifically contended in Para-8 of the written version that, at the time of sanctioning the loan, of them, the OP-3 had asked the complainant to submit the original deeds, whereas the complainant had furnished certified copies in place of original deeds, as the complainant had informed that, original deeds were given to Revenue Authorities.  And that thus the complainant persuaded the OP-3 to furnish loan based on the certified copies of the documents.  Thus dismissal of the complaint with further prayer to direct the complainant to withdraw the complaint against, of them the OP Nos.1 & 2 since are un-necessary parties, have been sought. 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence and he has been subjected to cross-examination.  Exhibits-P.1 to P.14 have been marked and received in evidence.  On behalf of the OP Nos.1 to 3 Sri. S. Nagaraj being the District Manager, K.S.C.A & R.B, Bank, Chikkballapura Branch, representing the OP-2 has submitted his affidavit evidence.  And he has also been submitted to cross-examination.  Exhibit-D.1 has been marked and received in evidence. 

05.   On 03.08.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted written arguments together with two postal acknowledgements at the instance of the OP Nos.2 and 3.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also placed reliance on order dated: 02.09.2005 in Original Petition No. 70/2002 as passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, by furnishing Xerox copy of the said order.

06.   On 03.08.2015 itself the said learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the OP Nos.1 to 3 have submitted their written arguments.  On 03.08.2015 itself heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

07.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether the complainant at the time of availing the loan had submitted original registered sale deed dated: 02.11.2009 in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.142, measuring 01 acre 09 guntas situated at Pura Village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gauribidnur Taluk, Chickballapur District, which document was registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gauribidnur, vide Part-5 bearing registration Number/document No.GBD-1-0008-2011-12 which was also stored in CD No. GBDD50 to the OP-3 and hence for OP Nos.1 & 2 also?

2. If so, non-returning of the said original sale deed to the complainant on 12.11.2014 at the time of execution of mortgage release deed by the OP-3 in favour of the complainant, would tantamount to deficiency in service?

3. If so, to what relief and compensation the complainant is entitled to?

4.  What order?

08.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT 1:     In the Affirmative.

POINT 2:     In the Affirmative.

POINT 3:     The complainant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  The OP Nos.1 to 3 shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest @ 6% pa from 05.03.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization jointly and severally besides to comply the directions that are being issued, in the final order with regard to loss of the said original document.

POINT 4:     As per final order

For the following:-

REASONS

POINT NO.s. 1 to 3:-

09.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

(a) It cannot be disputed that of all these OP Nos.1 to 3, OP-3 had released the said loan sanctioned to the complainant, whereas OP Nos.1 & 2 being superior organizations in hierarchy had intervened to accord sanction on reference being made by the OP-3.

(b)    It is also no more in dispute that, the complainant had repaid the entire dues to the OP-3 to the knowledge of the OP Nos.1 & 2.  Further it is no more in-dispute that on 12.11.2014 the OP-3 did execute in favour of the complainant mortgage release deed which would mean that, the said land bearing Survey No.142, measuring 01 acre 09 guntas situated at Pura Village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gauribidnur Taluk, Chickballapur District, stood release of the mortgage for which it was subjected to. 

(c)    If the contention of the complainant is that, at the time of availing the said loan he had produced the original registered sale deed dated: 02.11.2009 in respect of the said land to the OP-3, the OP-3 and hence OP Nos.1 & 2 in their written version vide para-8, as noted above are to contend that, even when of them, OP-3 had asked the complainant to produce the original sale deed the complainant had produced only the certified copies by contending that, the same be accepted, for, the original deeds were given to Revenue Authorities.

(d)    Therefore now we are duty bound to search the truth, in the light of the rival contentions raised by the parties.  We are of the definite opinion that, at the time of availing the loan the complainant had submitted the said original registered sale deed dated: 02.11.2009 in respect of the said land and not the certified copies as tried to be contended by the Ops.  The reasons are simple.  DW-1 Sri. S. Nagaraj, the District Manager, representing the OP-2 in his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief has asseverated in Para-3 as hereunder:-

“I swear that at the time of sanctioning the loan to the complainant the respondent No.3 asked to furnish the original deeds, but the complainant has furnished the certified copies instead of original deeds and he informed that the original title deeds had given to revenue authorities and the complainant was humbly approached the respondent No.3 to give loan by receiving the certified copies.  For that at the time of sanctioning loan the respondent No.3 has accepted his approach and sanctioned the said loan on the basis of the certified copies.”

(Emphasis supplied)

(e)    Such a version is nothing but re-affirmation of the contentions raised by the OP Nos.1 to 3 in their written version as noted in Para-8.  But if we peruse the version given by this witness during the course of cross-examination contradictions do manifest.  In Para-3 he has deposed thus:-

“

I voluntarily state that, whatever the documents were handed-over by the complainant at the time of availing the loan the same were collected by the complainant.”

(Emphasis supplied)

In Para-4 of the cross-examination he has also stated that, no acknowledgement for having returned the documents to the complainant at the time of discharge from loan liability was taken.  If returning of the document was a fact, the OP-3 had no obstacle in getting such acknowledgement.  At any rate such version of returning of the said document is utter falsehood, for, in Para-9 of the written version these OP Nos.1 to 3 contend thus:-

“The respondent No.3 submit that, he was not on the said branch at the time of sanctioning the loan to the complainant and further the respondent No.3 is ready to hand over the certified copies of the deeds which was deposited by the complainant.”

(Emphasis supplied)

(f)     Thus with regard to the version of returning of the documents be they certified copies, even the OP Nos.1 to 3 have come up with contradictory versions.  In their pleadings they have under taken to return which would mean the documents are with them.  Whereas in the cross-examination at Para-3 as noted above the very witness being OP-2 has voluntarily stated that, “whatever documents were handed-over by the complainant at the time of availing the loan the same were collected by the complainant”.  How to believe this ?  We cannot.  Therefore the only inference that we are constrained to draw is that, the complainant had submitted the original registered sale deed dated: 02.11.2009 in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 142, measuring 01 acre 09 guntas situated at the said village to the OP-3 and hence OP Nos.1 & 2 and the same has not been returned to him at all despite OP-3 executing mortgage release deed in respect of the same land on 12.11.2014 in favour of the complainant.

(g)    Therefore by following the principles enunciated in order dated: 02.09.2005 in Original Petition No.70/2002 as enunciated by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, as relied by the learned counsel for the complainant we direct the OP Nos.1 to 3 to declare by way of publication of an advertisement in widely circulated Kannada newspaper with regard to the loss of the said original registered sale deed dated: 02.11.2009.  Consequently the OP Nos.1 to 3 shall fallow further directions which we issue immediately hereafter while taking up Point 4.

(h)    As the complainant stands given substantial relief we are of the definite opinion that coming to compensation part of the claim granting of Rs.10,000/- would suffice. 

POINT 4:-

10.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons this complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/- as hereunder:-

(a) The OP Nos.1 to 3 shall publish an advertisement in Kannada Daily Newspaper having vide circulation to the effect that, the original registered sale deed dated: 02.11.2009 standing in the name of the complainant Sri. Kempanna, S/o.Shamanna, residing at Gidaganahalli Village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gauribidnur Taluk, in respect of loan bearing Survey No.142, measuring 01 acre 09 guntas situated at Pura Village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gauribidnur Taluk, Chickballapur District, which was registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gauribidnur, vide Part-5 bearing registration Number/document No.GBD-1-0008-2011-12 which is also stored in CD No. GBDD50 which was whilest in their custody was lost.

(b)    Further the OP Nos.1 to 3 so stating the reasons as noted above shall apply for certified copy of the said registered sale deed and hand it over the same to the complainant with a specific covering letter disclosing that, with regard to the loss of the original document the said advertisement has been published and in lieu of the lost original registered sale deed the certified copy of the same has been sent to this complainant.  And this covering letter shall be annexed with news paper cutting carrying publication so advertised. 

(c)    Further the OP Nos.1 to 3 shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest @ 6% pa from 05.03.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization jointly and severally.

(d)    We grant time of two months for compliance of the said reliefs granted in favour of the complainant from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 05^th DAY OF AUGUST 2015)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                 PRESIDENT