State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manager, State Bank Of Mysore, vs V Nandyappa, on 9 February, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/227/2015 ( Date of Filing : 02 Mar 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/01/2015 in Case No. CC/282/2013 of District Shimoga) 1. Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Jog Falls, Sagar Taluk, Shimogga District . 2. Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Adarshnagar Branch, Hubli-580032, Dharwad District . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. V Nandyappa, S/o late Gaviyappa, Sri Manjunatha Nilaya, Old Ramakrishna Road, Second Stage, Vinobha Nagar, Shimoga-577204 . ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 09 Feb 2023 Final Order / Judgement THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 APPEAL NO.227/2015 PRESENT SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER 1. The Manager, State Bank of India Jog falls, Sagar taluk ... Appellant/s Shivamogga District 2. The Manager, State Bank of India, Adarshnagar Branch, Hubli- 580 032 Dharwad District (By Sri.T.P.Muthanna, Advocate) V/s Sri.V.Nandyappa, S/o late Gaviyappa, Sri Manjunatha Nilaya, ... Respondent/s Old Ramakrishna road, Second stage, Vinobha Nagar, Shivamogga- 577 204 O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Opposite Parties in complaint No.282/2013 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Shivamogga which directed them to return of the documents and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and submits that the complainant had obtained housing loan to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for purchase of site and construction of the house and the same was sanctioned by these appellants on 8-2-1991. At the time of sanction, these appellants have released an amount of Rs.45,000/- towards purchase of the site. There afterwards the controlling office of the bank at Hubballi while permitting the releasing of the said amount had advised the respondent/complainant to create equitable mortgage at Adarshanagar branch, Hubli through their letter dated 4-2-1991 by depositing original sale deed and other related documents for the purpose of disbursements of further loan to the construction of the house, but this respondent had not came forward to create equitable mortgage. Anyhow with the assistance of the employees' union, the complainant/respondent influenced the appellant no.2 and got issued a letter dated 11-11-1991 stating that he had created equitable mortgage on 20-4-1991 with Adarshanagar branch, Hubli and obtained further disbursement of the loan amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, accordingly the said amount was also released in favour of complainant. There afterwards the complainant/respondent was applied for another education loan to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on 18-1-1995. The complainant subsequently filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service in not returning the original documents basing on the letter dated 23-10-1991. The District Consumer Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to return the original documents along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The said order is not in accordance with law, in fact the complainant has not executed the equitable mortgage by submitting the original sale deed and other related documents as per the letter dated 4-2-1991. The remaining loan amount was released only basing on the letter dated 20-4-1991, the said letter was obtained by taking advantage of the employees union. Hence submits the complainant not at all provided any documents to these Opposite Parties by executing the equitable mortgage. In spite of that the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed this Opposite Parties to hand over the original documents. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal and notes of arguments submitted by respondent and certified copy of the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, there is no dispute that these appellants has sanctioned the loan to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for the purpose of purchase of site and construction of the building at the time of sanction they have released an amount of Rs.45,000/-, subsequently they have instructed to this respondent to execute the equitable mortgage in favour of them by depositing the original sale deed and other related documents. There afterwards the respondent has obtained the balance loan amount by providing letter dated 20-4-1991 stating that the equitable mortgage was created basing on the said letter, these appellants have sanctioned the entire loan, there afterwards after completion of the loan the respondent/complainant sought for return the original title deed along with other documents, but the appellants/Opposite Parties have contended before the District Consumer Commission that, the complainant has not executed the equitable mortgage in favour of them and also not deposited any title deed, the question of the return of documents does not arise at all. In spite of that the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint. We noticed that the complainant has not produced any materials to show he has executed equitable mortgage by depositing the original sale deed and other related documents before the District Consumer Commission, even he has not produced any such documents to show that he has executed the equitable mortgage. Merely basing on the letter dated 20-4-1991 the complainant claimed for the return of original title deed. In the absence of any mortgage we do not believe that the Opposite Parties have received the original title deed and other documents from the complainant. The averments made in the version and memorandum of appeal is believable. The complainant had merely through a letter dated 20-4-1991 had obtained balance loan amount to be released but he has not executed any mortgage deed and such being the case the question of return of the sale deed does not arise at all, but the District Consumer Commission without considering the evidence and documents produced by the Opposite Parties have merely basing on the oral evidence of the complainant had allowed the complaint which lacks legality. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. We found there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties as such the appeal is allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R The appeal filed by the appellants is hereby allowed.
The impugned order 28.1.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shivamogga in CC.No.282/2013 is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Parties.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER