BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GADAG. Basaveshwar Nagar, Opp: Tahasildar Office, Gadag COMPLAINT NO.18/2021 DATED 29th DAY OF JULY-2022 |
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPUR B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT | | HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed., WOMAN MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) MEMBER |
|
Complainant/s: 1) Venkanagouda R. Govindgoudar
Balaji Heights,
R/o A-3, 5th A cross, Panchaxari Nagar, Gadag-582101.
(In person)
V/s
Respondents :- | 1) 2) | The Zonal Manager, Bank of Maharastra No.15, Police Station Road, Basavangudi, Bengaluru-560 004. (Rep. by Sri. S.K.Handigol, Advocate) The Branch Head, Bank of Maharastra Tippu Sultan Circle, Gadag-582 101. (Rep. by Sri. R.V.Kumar, Advocate) |
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. D.Y. BASAPUR, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec.35 of the C.P. Act, 2019, seeking relief against the OPs directing to issue letter towards removing the hypothecation, Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,00,000/- towards special damages.
1. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant had availed housing loan from OP No.2 for Rs.20,00,000/- and 17,00,000/-, both the said accounts were closed on 10.05.2016 and he was issued the closing certificate on 20.01.2018. Inspite of request by complainant Ops did not issue letter to remove the hypothecation on property bearing Rs.No.447/A plot No.19+20K. He has borrowed another loan and again the said property has been hypothecated. Finally, he issued request letter for removing the Hypothecation of the said two loans on 16.10.2020, but they failed to issue the said letter. They have committed negligence and deficiency of service, even though he closed both loans since 5 years. Hence, filed this complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, in pursuance of service of notice the OP No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsels and filed joint written version.
3. The brief facts of the written version of the OPs are as under:
OPs admitted that after closer of the previous loan, within a week fresh loan was sanctioned. The fresh loan facility vide A/c No.60248586324 amounting to INR 125 lakh was sanctioned to the complainant on 16.05.2016 and the same properties were Mortgaged to the said fresh loan. Account slipped to NPA category as per RBI guidelines on 29.01.2017, in very short period of seven months, on payment of the overdue amount, it again became standard on 04.03.2017 and finally on 31.03.2018 again slipped into NPA category for which already show cause notice dtd:02.09.2021 to the complainant for declaring as Wilful Defaulter is issued and the present complaint is merely eyewash to utilize the Legal machinery to hamper the recovery efforts of the Public Money. Complainant wrongly mentioned that there was hypothecation instead it was mortgaged for the term loan facility availed by the borrower. Value of the property is more than one crore and this Commission has not jurisdiction to try and entertained the complaint. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. Complainant filed clarification to the objection are as under:-
Earlier Bank Manager has defrauded the Bank for crores of rupees and he is absconding. Ops have not mentioned that there is recovery proceeding going on against the complainant in the DRT Bengaluru. The OP has not brought to the knowledge that the bank lost the case before the DM Gadag for seizing the said property of the complainant. OP has filed recovery case before the DRT, Bengaluru which is pending.
5) To prove the case, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence and was examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3. One Abdulwahab, Mandal Manager, for OP No.2 filed affidavit evidence and was examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.OP-1 & Ex.OP-2.
6) Heard, the arguments.
6. The points for our consideration arose are as under:
i) Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief?
iii) What order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: Affirmative.
Point No.2: Affirmative.
Point No.3: As per final order.
REASONS
8. On careful perusal of the materials placed before the Commission, PW-1 has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his affidavit. PW-1 has stated that the complainant had availed housing loan from OP No.2 for Rs.20,00,000/- and 17,00,000/- and both the said accounts were closed on 10.05.2016 and he was issued the closing certificate on 20.01.2018. Inspite of request by complainant Ops did not issue letter to remove the hypothecation on property bearing Rs.No.447/A plot No.19+20K. He has borrowed another loan and again the said property has been hypothecated. Finally, he issued request letter for removing the Hypothecation of the said two loans on 16.10.2020. They did not issue letter. They have committed the negligence and deficiency of service, even though he closed both loans since 5 years.
9. RW-1 has filed affidavit in-lieu of his chief examination and reiterated the contents of written version. RW-1 has stated that OPs admitted that after closer of the previous loan within a week fresh loan was sanctioned. The fresh loan facility vide A/c No.60248586324 amounting to INR 125 lakh was sanctioned to the complainant on 16.05.2016 and the same properties were Mortgaged to the said fresh loan. Account slipped into NPA category as per RBI guidelines on 29.01.2017, in a very short period of seven months, on payment of the overdue amount, it again became standard on 04.03.2017 and finally on 31.03.2018 again it slipped into NPA and for which already show cause notice dtd:02.09.2021 was issued to the complainant for declaring as Wilful Defaulter and the present complaint is merely eyewash to utilize the Legal machinery to hamper the recovery efforts of the Public Money. Complainant wrongly mentioned that there was hypothecation instead it was mortgaged for the term loan facility availed by the borrower. Value of the property is more than one crore and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertained the complaint.
10. Undisputed facts are that complainant availed two loans and mortgaged his property. The said both loans were repaid and closed by the complainant and OP issued clearance certificate as per Ex.Op-1 & Ex.OP-2. The main contention of Ops that immediately after closer of previous loans, again complainant borrowed a fresh loan and mortgage the said property. Ex.C-3 is letter issued by complainant to OP requesting to issue letter for removing the hypothecation on the property. Though previous loan was repaid and closed and already OP has issued the certificate for closure of both the loan as per the Ex.C-1 & 2. Then it is duty of the Ops to issue letter for removing either hypothecation or mortgage of previous loans to the competent authority or Sub-Registrar. The OP No.1 is the letter produced by Ops that after closer of previous loans, the complainant again availed fresh loan and mortgaged the very said property. Merely complainant availing a fresh loan is not a ground to the Ops, for non-issuance of letter to remove the mortgage on complainant property. Admittedly, already the said property is duly mortgaged for fresh loan availed by the complainant. Such being the case, no harm or damaged will be caused to the Ops, if they issue letter for removal of the mortgage for previous loans. If removal letter will not issued the complainant will be put to hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the complainant as mortgage for previous loan is remained continued in the property extract, then it is difficult to the complainant for availing further loan. Even Ops did not reply to the request letter the Ex.C-3 submitted by the complainant have not made effort to issue removal letter. Thus complainant proved that Ops have committed deficiency of service.
11) The contention of Ops that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try as value of loan amount is more than one lakh cannot be sustainable, because complainant is not disputing the fresh loan availed and mortgaged the property, moreover already Ops have approached the DRT, Bengaluru for recovery of fresh loan same is pending. Moreover, complainant has already issued a letter on 10.06.2022 as per Ex.Op-2 for settlement of loan accounts. So
Ex.OP-1 & Ex.OP-2 are not at all concerned to fresh loan. Complainant is seeking only simple relief to direct the Ops for issuance of letter for removed mortgage on property for both previous loans.
12. For the above complainant proved that OP committed deficiency of service and is entitle for the relief as sought for? Accordingly we answer point No.1 & 2 in the affirmative.
13. Point No.3:- In the result, we pass the following:
//O R D E R//
The complaint filed u/Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is hereby allowed.
The Ops are directed to issue letter for removal of the hypothecation or mortgage on the property bearing R.S. No.447/A plot No.19+20K in respect of previous loan account No.60207266607 for Rs.20,00,000/- and another loan account No.6019963434 for Rs.17,00,000/- within one month from the date of this order.
The complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- /- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards cost of the proceedings.
Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Court on this 29th day of
July-2022)
,
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
-: ANNEXURE :-
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:
PW-1: Venkanagouda Govindgoudar
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1& 2 : Copy of Bankers Certificate dtd:20.01.2018.
Ex.C-3 : Complainant letter issued to Branch Head and other
Bank of Maharashtra Gadag dtd:16.10.2020.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OP No.1.
NIL
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OP No.1:
NIL
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OP No.2.
RW-1 : Abdulwahab Mandal, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra.
Ex.OP-1 : Copy of sanction loan letter dtd:12.05.2016.
Ex.OP-2 :Copy of one time settlement of loan account given by the complainant on 10.06.2022.
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapura) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
