CC Filed on 15.01.2009<br /> Disposed on 11.08.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 11th day of August 2009<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. 06/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Chowdappa,<br /> S/o. Gopalappa,<br /> Aged about 45 years,<br /> R/a Urataagrahara, Sugatur Hobli,<br /> Thotly Post, Kolar Taluk.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. A.V. Ananda & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> The Manager,<br /> Syndicate Bank,<br /> Kolar Branch,<br /> Cotton pet,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. V. Sreedhara Murthy) <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.6,00,000/- in favour of complainant and to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with costs and interest, etc., <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant approached OP for loan to construct sericulture rearing house and for agriculture purpose. OP agreed to provide loan of Rs.6,00,000/- by creating simple mortgage in respect of land and house properties belonging to the complainant. The complainant executed registered simple mortgage deed 23.02.2008 as required by OP. It is alleged that inspite of it the OP did not release the loan amount without any reason. He alleged that he sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/- as the loan was not released in time. <br /> <br /> 3. The OP appeared and contested the claim of complainant. The OP contended that (a) it is informed that the complainant to create mortgage along with his two brothers Narayanaswamy and Nanjundappa, but the complainant failed to do so, (b) the OP bank has not assured for sanction of Rs.6,00,000/-, (c) the complainant has not offered surety till date, and the person offered as surety, had already signed as surety to several persons for other loans which became irregular accounts and fell due, (d) the complainant has not turned up towards branch since six months to discuss with Branch Manager, (e) complainant has not furnished the Detailed Estimate for his loan, (f) the complainant has to show the progress of unit by beginning the work, but the complainant has not taken the Branch Manager to the spot for inspection and he has not shown any progress regarding the same. Further the OP has contended that even now if the complainant fulfills the terms and conditions of the Bank, it is ready to sanction the loan on the basis eligibility of the complainant as per terms and conditions prescribed by guidelines. <br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed affidavits in support of their respective contentions. The complainant has produced certain documents. The OP has not filed any documents.<br /> <br /> 5. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the records and the submissions of the parties we think, lack of skill on the part of OP and some communication gap between parties led to this dispute. <br /> <br /> The OP sent a letter to Sub-Registrar, Kolar dated 21.02.2008 enclosing a draft simple mortgage deed to be executed by complainant, with a request to register the said document and to exempt his personal appearance as per sec-86(1) of Registration Act 1908. The simple mortgage deed sent along with this letter has been executed and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kolar on 23.02.2008 by complainant. The legal opinion obtained by OP shows that the mortgage deed is to be executed by complainant along with his two brothers, who are having equal share with complainant over the properties to be mortgaged. Therefore it appears that the mortgage deed should have been executed by complainant and his brothers and a draft mortgage deed should have been prepared accordingly. But the mortgage deed now registered is executed by complainant alone because it was drafted like that. It appears this mistake was committed by OP in not repairing the proper draft of mortgage deed. The complainant submitted that the OP has not informed regarding the fulfillment of any other steps. The OP has not produced any notice issued to complainant to fulfill the requirements now stated by it. The OP has also not produced the copy of loan sanction order containing the terms and conditions of the loan. Such sanction order should have been served on the complainant and he should have been asked to comply those terms before release of the loan. <br /> <br /> 7. Both Counsel submitted that they would properly advise their clients and the complainant may approach the Bank for fulfilling the terms of loan. <br /> <br /> 8. In view of the above facts we pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP shall properly guide the complainant to execute the required documents and to fulfill other conditions for release of loan as per the loan sanction order. The complainant shall immediately approach OP to seek further instructions. On fulfillment of conditions by complainant the loan shall be released immediately. The whole process shall be completed within 2 months from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 11th day of August 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />