State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs N.Suguna on 20 June, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/74/2021 ( Date of Filing : 27 Jan 2021 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 14/12/2020 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/66/2019 of District Mandya) 1. State Bank of India R.A.C.P.C., Saraswathipuram, Mysuru-570009 Rep. by its Asst. General Manager Karnataka 2. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Krishnamurthypuram, Mysuru-9 Karnataka 3. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, R.P.Road, Mandya-570401 Karnataka ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. N.Suguna W/o A.M.Ramachandraiah, No.1760, 7th cross, 7th Main, Judicial layout, Jakkur, Allalasandra, Bengaluru-65 Karnataka 2. The Managing Director State Bank of India, Local Head Office-65 St.Mark's road, Bengaluru-560001 Karnataka ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/348/2021 ( Date of Filing : 01 Apr 2021 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 14/12/2020 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/66/2019 of District Mandya) 1. Smt.N.Suguna W/o Late A.M.Ramachandraiah, Aged about 37 years, R/a 1760, 7th cross, 7th Main, Judicial layout, Jakkuru, Bengaluru-560065 Now R/a Arkere village, Srirangapatna Tq., Mandya Karnataka ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. State Bank of India Rep. by its Managing Director, Local Head, No.65, St.Marks road, Bengaluru-560001 Karnataka 2. The Asst. General Manager State Bank of India, RACPC, Saraswathipuram, Mysuru-570009 Mysore Karnataka 3. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Krishnamurtypuram Branch, Mysuru-570009 Karnataka 4. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, R.P.Road, Mandya-571401 Karnataka ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 20 Jun 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JUNE 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 74 & 348/2021 APPEAL NO. 74/2021 1. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, R.A.C.P.C, Sarawathipuram, Mysore-570009. (By Praveen Prabhakar, Advocate) ......Appellant/s 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Krishnamurthypuram, Mysore-570009. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, R.P.Road, Mandya-570401. V/s 1. Smt. N.Suguna, W/o Mr.A.M. Ramachandraiah, No.1760, 7th Cross, 7th Main, Judicial Layout, Jakkur, Allasandra, Bangalore-560065. ....Respondent/s 2. The Managing Director, State Bank of India, Local Head, Office-65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001. APPEAL NO. 348/2021 1. Smt. N.Suguna, W/o Mr.A.M. Ramachandraiah, Aged about 37 years, R/at 1760, 7th Cross, 7th Main, Judicial Layout, Jakkur, Allasandra, Bangalore-560065. Now R/at Arkere Village, Srirangapattana Taluk, Mandya District. ......Appellant/s V/s 1. The Managing Director, Bank of India, Local Head, #65, St. Marks Road, Bengaluru-560001. .....Respondent/s 2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, R.A.C.P.C, Sarawathipuram, Mysore-570009. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Krishnamurthypuram, Branch Mysore-570009. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, R.P.Road, Mandya-570401. COMMON ORDER
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Both Complainant and Opposite Parties have preferred both these appeals being aggrieved by the Order dt.14.12.2020 passed in CC.No.66/2019 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya. Both Appeal No.74/2021 and Appeal No.348/2021 are clubbed together for the purpose of Common order.
2. The Opposite party No.1 to 3 preferred this Appeal No.74/2021 against order passed by the District Commission which directed these appellants to return all the original documents which have been deposited at time of availing the loan along with compensation for tune of Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses and submits that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission at Mandya alleging deficiency in service for not returning the Original title deeds after closure of the loan availed by her husband. The District Commission after trial, allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay compensation along with a direction to return the Original documents. In fact these appellants are ready to hand over the original documents to the complainant subject to furnishing Genealogical tree of the deceased husband of the complainant A.M.Ramachandraiah. The said A.M.Ramachandraiah had obtained the housing loan in the year 2004 by depositing the title deeds of the house property situated at Judicial Layout, Jakkur Allalasandra, Bangalore. The said deceased A.M.Ramachandraiah executed the loan agreement and agreed to pay in 144 installments towards repayment. It is reported that on 16.01.2018 the said A.M.Ramachandraiah passed away the loan was closed on 21.02.2018.
3. After closure of the said loan, the complainant approached OP Nos. 2 & 3 for return of the original documents for which they demanded for furnishing Genealogical Tree and other documents such as Death Certificate, Legal Heirship Certificate among other ancillary documents such as affidavits of other legal heirs. The complainant had not furnished the said documents to these appellants. In fact one A.N.Ramesh had delivered the said documents to the Appellant No.1. But, he had not provided a Survival Certificate of the legal heir to this Appellant No.2 and informed that he would provide same at the earliest. In spite of demand made to these appellants, the survival certificate is not provided. Hence, they denied to return original documents to the complainant.
4. Aggrieved by said order, she approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service. The District Commission without consideration of the non-production of documents has directed these appellants to return the original documents and also directed to pay compensation. In fact they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service.
5. Further, they are ready to return the documents subject to providing the documents required by these appellants. Further during the course of trial before the District Commission these appellants made submission before the District Commission for return of the original title deeds. But, the Respondent-1/Complainant not interested to accept the title deeds but interested to contesting the mater. Even on the advice of the District Commission to accept the original title deeds. The Respondent retreated she was unwilling accept the same. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation and they are still ready to return the documents to appellants hence, prayed for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.
6. The Complainant in Appeal No.348/2021 sought for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Commission for the reason that in spite of furnishing all the required documents, the respondents have not returned the documents and the complainant constrained to run from pillar to post for redressal of the lawful claim. The refusal of returning the documents is unwarranted and unjustified without any authority of law. Hence they are liable to pay additional compensation of another Rs.3,00,000/- apart from the award amount passed by the District Commission. This appellant constrained to file a complaint for returning of the own documents in spite of repayment made by her, hence prayed for modification of the award passed in the complaint for enhancement of the compensation in the interest of justice and equity.
7. On the perusal of the certified copy of the order and both memorandum of appeals, there is no dispute that one Sri A.M.Ramachandraiah had availed the housing loan by depositing his house property bearing No.1760, 7th main, 7th cross at Judicial Layout, Jakkur Allalasandra, Bangalore and he availed the loan to the tune of Rs.8,25,000/-. The said Deceased also agreed to pay 8% interest on 144 EMIs. Such being the case, on 16.01.2018 the said A.M. Ramachandraiah died leaving behind the complainant and her daughters as legal heirs. It is an admitted fact that the loan was closed on 21.02.2018. The said loan repayment was made by the complainant herself and there is no dispute with respect to the payment made by her. After payment of the said arrears of the loan, the complainant being the legal heir had sought for return of the original title deeds deposited at the time of availing the loan for which the appellants/OPs have insisted for production of certain documents such as Death Certificate, Legal heirship Certificate, among other ancillary documents like Genealogical Tree and certain affidavits to show the bonafide for collection of the original title deeds.
8. As per the requirement, the complainant had furnished all the documents to the Bank situated Krishnamurthipuram, Mysore. But for the best reasons known to the said appellants/OPs, the original documents were not returned to the complainant. The complainant constrained to file a complaint before the District Commission for return of the original documents. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellants/OPs to return the documents and to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.
9. We noticed here that as soon as the required documents were furnished, the appellant ought to return the original documents to the complainant. Instead of that the complainant to file a complaint for return of the documents. It is an admitted fact that the loan was cleared by complainant herself, when the loan was cleared and documents were furnished the Opposite party should not take much longer time for return of the documents. Here, we noticed that these appellants have submitted before the District Commission for the return of all the documents. The District Commission after considering the constrainment suffered by the complainant had allowed the complaint by imposing compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The award passed by the District Commission is justifiable and in accordance with law. We found that there are no merits in the arguments submitted by the learned advocate for appellant. Hence, no interference is required.
10. Further, in Appeal No.348/2021, the complainant sought for the enhancement of the compensation which according to us is not justifiable. The complainant has not provided any materials to show that she is entitled to get more compensation. In absence of such materials, we found the claim cannot be appreciable. As such, both appeal are liable to be dismissed and the order passed by the District Commission is confirmed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The Appeal is dismissed. No order costs.
The appellant Appeal No.74/2021 is directed to return the documents and to pay compensation and other expenses awarded.
Office is directed to issue cheque in favor of the Respondent in Appeal No.74/2021/ Appellant in Appeal No.348/2021 towards the deposited amount by obtaining proper I.D. Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER P* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER