Before the District consumers Forum Kurnool
Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C. Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, B.com LL.B, Member
Thursday the 4th day of December, 2003
C.D.No.81/2002
M.Wilson Prasad,
S/o Devadanam,
Indian Christain,
Tangadencha Village,
Kurnool District,
Present address in
Shop No.S.C. Shopping Complex,
Indoor Stadium, Kurnool District. . ..Complainants represented by their
Counsel Sri.K.Lokeswara Reddy, Advocate.
-Vs-
The Manager,
Rayalaseema Grameena Bank,
Jupadu Bangalow Branch,
Kurnool District. .. . Opposite party represented by his Counsel
Sri.G.Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate.
O R D E R
CC.No.81/2002
1. This Consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to return the original sale deed dated 03.08.1989, to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that he is native of Thangadancha Village, Jupadu Bangalow Mandal, Kurnool District and owns a land in an extend of Ac.11.14 cents of land in the above Village pertaining to Sy.Nos.23D, 24 and 32 by executing the simple mortgage deed on 19.03.1990 for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the opposite party bank in respect of the said land for the purpose of raising the loan for digging well by depositing the original sale deed dated 03.081989. then to sanction the required loan the opposite party Bank sought legal advice of their standing counsel on the basis of the original sale deed and as there was no link document showing derived title with respect to the said land the opposite party Bank advised the complainant to bring affidavits of his vendors of the above sale deed to grant loan and the complainant in pursuance of it arranged the required affidavits and on the basis of all the records the opposite party bank obtained legal advice from their sanding counsel and sanctioned the loan of Rs.24,000/- for the purpose of digging the well, but released only a sum of Rs.10,000/- later saying that there are hurdles to grant further loan in the name of the complainant for digging well, but the opposite party bank sanctioned crop loans to the complainant his brother, son and wife to the tune for Rs.48,500/- as the complainant failed to discharge the said debt opposite party Bank filed a suit in O.S.No.149/1995 before the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur against the complainant and by filing E.P. the opposite party bank got settled for a sum of RS.1,12,000/- for the said debts on 24.01.2001 and issued a receipt on 07.03.2001 in token of the receipt of the said loan amount. After discharging the above entire loan amount, then the Manager of the opposite parties Bank promised the complainant to give back the original sale deed dated 03.08.1989 later, but after lapse of some time when the complainant remained about the said promise the opposite party Bank said that it was misplaced and asked the complainant to come after some days. Even this promise also the opposite party Bank unable to fulfill and even till today the Manager of the opposite party Bank has not return the original sale deeds and with this indifferent attitude the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 03.07.2001 demanding the opposite party Bank to return the original sale deed dated 03.08.1989 of the complainant, but the opposite party Bank got issued a reply notice dated 23.01.2001 with false allegations. As the opposite party Bank on account of non-returning the original sale deed dated 03.08.1989 of the complainant and he is deprived of raising any fresh loan and making any dealing with the property covered by the said sale deed and hence the conduct of the opposite party Bank in not returning the original sale deed which he has given at the time of obtaining the loan amounts to deficiency of service and the opposite party bank has to return the said original sale deed dated 03.08.1989 to pay the damages of rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of this case.
3. The complainant besides filing a sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments reliefs upon the documentary record which is marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this case the opposite party bank made his appearance and filed its written version and sworn affidavit besides denying the justness and maintainability of the complainant’s case requiring the strict proof of the complaint averments, even thought the opposite party Bank admits all the facts that the mortgage of property of the sale deed of the scheduled mentioned in the sale deed dated 03.081989 and raising of the loans and discharge of the same by the complainant his brother, son and wife and the redemption of the mortgage was taken place on 07.03.2001, but not immediately after discharge of the loan amounts. The opposite party Bank only obtained a registered simple mortgage in the absence of the original sale deed dated 03.08.1989 if the original sale deed is available the opposite party would have created an equitable mortgage by deposit of the title deeds from the complainant and then the Manager of the opposite party Bank never promised to return the original sale deed and the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party Bank on 02.07.2001 and it was replied by the Bank 23.07.2001 as there is no cause of action for the complainant and the question of the returning the original sale deed dated 03.08.1989 does not arise as the complainant not deposited the same with the Bank and the opposite party Bank created registered simple mortgage in the absence of the original sale deed dated 03.08.1989, hence there was no cause of action in whatsoever.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service in not returning the original sale deed dated 03.08.1989 and his entitleness to the reliefs claimed?:-
6. The Ex.A1, certificate issued by the Rayalaseema Grammena Bank, Jupadu Bangalow as to the repayment of entire loan amount in full settlement as compromise offer. The Ex.A2 registered mortgage redemption deed dated 07.03.2001 (Document No.253/2001). Ex.A3 legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite party Bank and Ex.A4 is the reply notice issued by the opposite party Bank counsel to the complainant. The above factum was not rebutted by the opposite parties Bank and the aid material clearly establishes the privy between the complainant and the opposite party Bank as to the raise of the loan and its clearance.
7. The Bank has sanctioned loan after obtaining the legal opinion. The documents of loan file bearing No.2825 pertaining to the loan of the complainant produced by the opposite party Bank for the verification of the Forum does say any where the original sale deed of the complainant was filed for the consideration of the sanction of the loan to the complainant nor the complainant has placed any cogent material to the effect that he has submitted the original title deed of his property to the Bank for considering his loan application while such is so, the answer of the opposite party Bank to the question No.5 of the interrogatories of the complainant says the copy of the title deed, E.C. Revenue Records along with the legal opinion forwarded to the Head Office for sanction of the loan and obtained registered simple mortgage on the advice of the Head Office for sanctioning the loan. Further says that no original title deed was received at the time of creating the said registered mortgage.
8. It the original title deed was deposited by the complainant for obtaining the loan, he would have executed in favour of the opposite party Bank an equitable mortgage with the deposit of the said title deed instead of a simple registered mortgage deed which could be possible only in the absence of or availability of the original title deed. As the letter dated 03.03.2001 of the complainant filed in the loan file of the opposite party Bank addressed to the opposite party Bank as re questing for the return of the original documents and the affidavits which were handed over to the opposite party Bank at the time of simple registered mortgage and there being no cogent material and record either form the opposite party bank side or from the complainant’s side as to the filing of the original title deed of the complainant’s property and on the other hand the answer of the opposite party bank to the interrogatories in question No.5 of the complainant says of the furnishing the copy of the title deed and specifically denies of submission of any original title deed of the complainant for the consideration and sanction of loan the inability of the opposite party Bank to return the nay of the original sale deed as requested by the complainant under the above circumstances does not amount to any deficiency of service for the mere reason of the complainant not submitting the original title deed of his property to the opposite party bank at the time of consideration of his application for sanction of loan. Therefore, there appears no merit and force in the cause of action alleged against the opposite party bank and thereby any entitleness of the complainant for the reliefs sought.
9. However, when the loan is cleared the documents that must have been placed by the complainant for the consideration of his application for no longer required those documents mentioned in answer No.5 be returned to the complainant within a month of the receipt of this order.
10. In the result, in the above said observations the case of the complaint is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation, corrected by us, and pronounced in the Open Court this the 4th day of December, 2003.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainants:-Nil For the opposite party:-Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Certificate dated 01.03.2001 issued by Rayalaseema Grameena Bank Jupadu Bangalow as to the clearance to the loan.
Ex.A2 Receipt dated 07.03.2001 issued by Rayalaseema Grameena Bank Jupadu Bangalow.
Ex.A3 Xerox copy of letter dated 03.07.2001 i.e., notice issued by the complainant counsel to the opposite party.
Ex.A4 Xerox copy of the reply notice dated 23.07.2001 issued by opposite parties counsel to the complainant.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
//Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
