BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Thursday the 31st day of August, 2006
CC No. 60/2006
A.Abdul Rasheed,
S/o. Late A. Abdul Azeen,Aged about 42 years, Tailor,
H.No. 10/288, Buddekal Street,Adoni, Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Regional Manager,Central Bank of India,
Bank Street, Hyderabad.
2.The Branch Manager,Central Bank of India,
Adoni, Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri G.C. Ranganna, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1 and 2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund the title deeds of the complainant, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation, costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant availed loan for Rs.1,80,000/- on 22.2.2001 from opposite party No.2 by hypothecating his house bearing No. 10/ 65. At the time of sanctioning of loan amount the complainant produced title deed’s, plan and encumbrance certificate etc. The complainant regularly paid all the installment, but due to salck in business covered all installments belatedly. But the opposite party sent a notice under Securitation Act for auctioning the hypothecated property of the complainant. After receiving the notice on 28.11.2005 the complainant paid Rs. 2,90,772/- and cleared all dues. After payment of entire loan amount the complainant requested the opposite party to refund the title deeds, but the opposite party refused and stating at one time to pay Rs.3,000/- and at another instance to pay Rs.5,000/-and failed to return the title deeds. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice dt 27.12.2005 and opposite party No.2 replied dt 29.12.2005 demanding payment of Rs.11,520/- for recovery of loan amount under securitization Act and another notice dt 30.1.2006 was got issued by the complainant and opposite party No.2 replied dt 6.2.2006 evasively. As the opposite parties failed to return the title deeds to the complainant, the complainant has to resort to the Forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents Viz (1) letter dt 22.2.2001 of opposite party No.2 addressed to the complainant (2) Notice dt 16.5.2005 issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant (3) loan ledger TL No. 590010 dt 11.2.2006 of the complainant (4) loan ledger of Account No. 590010 dt 17.2.2006 (5) counter foils four in number (6) Office copy of legal notice dt 27.12.2005 (7) reply of opposite party No.2 dt 29.12.2005 (8) office copy of legal notice dt 30.1.2006 (9) reply by opposite party No.2 dt 6.2.2006 and (10) letter dt 26.11.2005 of opposite party No.2 to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.10 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case and opposite party No.2 filed written version and opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.
5. The written version of opposite parties submits that they have issued a notice to the complainant under SARFA and EST Act 2002 and proceedings were issued to take possession and delivery of mortgaged property under section 14 of above Act and after appointing Asset Recovery Management Yard Pvt Ltd (ARMY) as agents of opposite party to recover the due amount from the defaulter, the complainant after lapse of six months from the date of notice approached the opposite party that he is ready to clear the loan amount up to date with interest and other expenses also and remitted part loan amount on 28.11.2005. The opposite party demanded the complainant to pay 6% on the recovered amount towards commission payable to the recovery agents for final closure of loan account, but the complainant instead of pay the amount got issued legal notices with false allegations. The 6% on the received amount is statutory liability under section 13 (7) of securitization Act and only after payment of said amount, the deposited documents will be returned to the complainant. Lastly submits that the complainant is not at all entitled for damages of Rs.50,000/- and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
6. The opposite party in support of their case relied on the following documents Viz (1) letter dt 5.8.2005 of opposite party No.2 addressed to The District Magistrate, Kurnool and (2) proceeding of the Collector and District Magistrate Kurnool dt 1.9.2005 addressed to MRO Adoni and copy to opposite party No.2, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 in reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 and B.2 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories filed by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on opposite parties:-
8. It is the case of the complainant alleging that he has paid the entire loan amount to opposite party No.2 but the opposite party No.2 failed to release the title deeds deposited by him at the time of sanctioning the said loan amount. But as against to it the written version of opposite parties submits that the complainant was a regular defaulter and did not pay the installments, hence, addressed a letter dt 5.8.2005 vide Ex B.1 to the Dist. Magistrate, Kurnool to take possession of Mortgaged property of the complainant under Securitization Act, 2002 as the complainant/borrower had defaulted in repaying the liability under/ Housing loan to the Bank and the account had become non- performing asset and with present out standing due is Rs.1,91,974/- and further states that opposite party No.2 has already issued notice to the complainant on 16.5.2002 under section 13 (2) of the above Act demanding repayment of loan amount within 60 days inspite of said notice the complainant failed to repay the said loan amount and that they have appointed Asset Recovery Management Yard Pvt Ltd (ARMY) as their authorised agents for recovery the due amounts and lastly requests to interven as provided under section 14 of the above Act and to take possession of complainant property. Therefore, The District Collector/ District Magistrate on 1.9.2005 issued proceedings to MRO, Adoni that it has been decided to proceed against the complainant as per “Securitization and reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2005” under section 14 to take possession of the properties of the complainant and to deliver the same to them under the Act.
9. After issuing of proceedings by the Collector for taking the possession of the complainant’s house, and after appointing ARMY as authorized agents of opposite party No.2 the complainant came forward and paid out dues of loan amount, but failed to pay the 6% on recovered amount as expenses, costs, charges as per section 13 (7) of Securitization Act 2002, which is a statutory liability on part of complainant, as the expenses are incurred by the bank for recovering the out standing dues from the complainant. Hence, their appears no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in not releasing the title deeds of the complainant as part amount is still due to them. Therefore, there is no remedy available to the complainant.
10. The opposite party relied on the following citations (1) Punjab State Commission between K.K. Foams Industries and Anr Vs Punjab Financial Corporation and Anr reported in I 2004 CPJ Pg 41 “ where in it was held that the relation ship of complainant with opposite parties was of a borrower and a debtor. Hence, complainant’s are not Consumers District Forum dismissed the complaint. (2) Gujarat State Commission between Bhagwandas Khubchand Mulani Vs Manager, Cargo Motors Ltd and Anr reported in 2004 (CPJ) Pg 529, it was held that dispute regarding the rendition of accounts is not a Consumer dispute elaborate evidence is required. Hence dispute related to Civil Court.
10. In the result, of the above discussion and following the above citations, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the Open Court this the 31st day of August, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: For the opposite parties
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Letter dt 22.2.2001 of opposite party No.2 addressed to the complainant.
Ex A.2 Notice dt 16.5.2005 issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex A.3 Loan ledger TL No. 590010 dt 11.2.2006 of the complainant.
Ex A.4 Loan ledger of Account No. 590010 dt 17.2.2006.
Ex A.5 Counter foils four in number.
Ex A.6 Office copy of legal notice dt 27.12.2005.
Ex.A.7 Reply of opposite party No.2 dt 29.12.2005.
Ex A.8 Office copy of legal notice dt 30.1.2006.
Ex A.9 Reply by opposite party No.2 dt 6.2.2006 .
Ex A.10 Letter dt 26.11.2005 of opposite party No.2 to the complainant.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Letter dt 5.8.2005 of opposite party No.2 addressed to The District
Magistrate, Kurnool.
Ex B.2 Proceeding of the Collector and District Magistrate Kurnool dt 1.9.2005
addressed to MRO Adoni and copy to opposite party No.2.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1.Sri G.C. Ranganna, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.Sri P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
