Karnataka

Kolar

CC/09/60

V.M.Nanjundappa, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

16 Sep 2009

ORDER


THE DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
No.419, Ist Floor,. H.N. Gowda Building, M.B.Road, Kolar-563101
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/60

V.M.Nanjundappa,
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Manager,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

CC Filed on 10.08.2009 Disposed on 17.09.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 17th day of September 2009 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 60/2009 Between: Sri. V.M. Nanjundappa, S/o. Late Muniyappa, House No. 204, 1st Cross, Vinayakanagar, Kolar. ….Complainant V/S The Manager, State Bank of India, Kolar Branch, Kolar. (By Advocate Sri. Sama Rangappa) ….Opposite Party ORDERS This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to return documents of title and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- compensation for not returning the title deeds to complainant by OP within reasonable time after discharge of the mortgaged debt. 2. The complainant obtained certain loan from OP in 1998 for construction of his residential house agreeing to repay the amount in certain installments. He discharged the loan in July 2005. He had deposited title deeds relating to his site where house was to be constructed. He demanded for return of the original title deeds relating to that site and it is alleged that for four years he was made to wander for getting back the said title deeds and inspite of it they were not returned and he also given application for return of the title deeds in August 2007. He alleged that if he had received the original title deeds he would have sold his house which would have fetched Rs.2,00,000/- more than the present market value. He alleged that he had also obtained private loans with higher interest and he would have discharged those loans by selling the house and he need not have paid Rs.1,00,000/- extra interest on private loans. Therefore he claims compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. The OP appeared and soon thereafter it produced the documents of titles before this Forum and the same were returned to complainant. 4. The OP contended that apart from the mortgaged loan which was discharged in 2005, the complainant had also obtained the personal loan and he committed default and cleared it only in 2007. OP has not disputed the receipt of written application given by complainant in August 2007 for return of title deeds. It contended that the office of OP was shifted from one building to another building and the records were misplaced and thereby there was some delay in tracing the title deeds. 5. In view of the facts in dispute, leading of evidence by parties is dispensed with. We heard the parties. 6. The OP should have returned the title deeds soon after clearance of personal loan in 2007 even if it had claimed general lien over the title deeds. The complainant gave written application dated 30.08.2007 for return of title deeds. Therefore we hold that atleast there is delay of two years in returning the title deeds. 7. The complainant has not produced any reliable evidence that he was required to sell his house to discharge the private loans in the year 2007 itself. He had not stated the quantum of private loan borrowed by him or any material to show its existence. When he constructed the house for his residence by borrowing loan from OP it is not probable that he had incurred a huge private debts or he was likely to sell the house. Therefore the claim towards compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- made by complainant is not acceptable. We think apart from costs, Rs.2,000/- may be awarded as compensation for mental agony. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is partly allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP shall pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation to complainant within 6 weeks from the date of this order. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 17th day of September 2009. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT