State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. K. Dilip Chandra vs M/S.Bank Of India, Hyderabad on 28 May, 2024
1 BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD (ADDITIONAL BENCH) C.C. No 131/2018 Between :
Dr. K. Dilip Chandra S/o. Sri Advaiah, aged about 53 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner, Prop. Divya Hospital & Laparoscopic Center, R/o. H.No.19-1/A, Venkateshwara Colony, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, ... Complainant And
1) M/s. Bank of India, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Manager, P.B.No.134, 5-8-659, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad-01.
....Opposite party.
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. M. Damodar Reddy Counsel for the Opposite party : M/s. MV Ramana QUORUM: Hon'bleSri.K.RangaRao, M ember-(J) , & Hon'bleSmt.R.S.Rajeshree, M ember (N-J).
TUESDAY THE TW ENTY EIGHT DAY OF M AY, TW O THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR.
**** Order : (Per Hon'bleSmt.R.S.Rajeshree, M ember (N-J) )
01). This is a complaint filed by the Complainant u/s. 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 on 25.07.2018 against the opposite party and prayed to pass orders as under:
(i) To Direct the opposite party to release the immovable property security of the building bearing No. 19-1/A, Venkateshwara Colony, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, vide document No.4631/2004, dated 19.07.2004 and document No.5230/2003, dated 27.10.2003 which is the secured asset for the purpose of obtaining loan by the wife of the complainant for M/s. Krishnaveni poultry Farm only forthwith by setting aside the impugned letter dated 04.01.2018 and 12.03.2018 issued by the opposite party.
(ii) The opposite party bank may be directed to pay damages amounting Rs.50 Lakhs to the Complainant.
(iii) To award the costs.
202). The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant is medical practitioner and running his clinic under the name and style Divya Hospital and Laparoscopic Centre and has been serving the public since several years; that with a intention to extend the services to the general public in the more sophisticated and detail manner he intended to purchase certain medical equipment to extend the services and accommodate more patients. As such he had approached the Opposite party bank to avail the loan. The opposite party after considering the application of the complainant and scrutinizing his credentials, had sanctioned a credit facility vide sanctioned letter dt.18.03.2014, to the tune of Rs.1 Crore with 40% margin to paid by the complainant with an interest at the rate 1.75% over the base rate totalling to 11.95% p.a. The said loan was secured by the hypothecation charge over the equipment and machinery that would be purchased by the complainant.
The above said loan was covered under credit guarantee fund trust for micro and small enterprises (CGTMSE ) and the said loan amount was repayable in 60 equal monthly instalments of Rs.2,22,192/- per month after the moratorium period of 6 months from the date of final disbursement. The above loan was sanctioned to the complainant under a special scheme i.e. BIO DOCTORS PLUS wherein there is a concession in the rate of interest and processing charges. Under the said scheme the opposite party has been collecting the premium amount towards the insurance for the loan sanctioned every year regularly in addition to monthly instalments.3
The loan under the scheme is sanctioned for the purchase of medical equipments for clinics hospitals and other medical related establishments etc., by hypothecating the equipments purchased, therefore there is no requirement to furnish any immovable property as security. And as per the terms of the scheme, for loans from 1 Crore to 10 Crore no collateral security is to be insisted upon. And the same is required only in case the loan is availed for construction or Renovation of hospital building; and since the complainant had availed the loan for purchase of equipment no security in the form of immovable property was required but however the opposite party had highhandedly insisted the complainant and extended the equability mortgage on the hospital building of the complainant situated at Venkateshwara colony, Shadnagar village and Gram Panchayat, Farooqnagar Mandal,Ranga Reddy District, standing in the name of the complainant which was originally mortgaged to the Opposite party bank for the loan availed by his wife on the account of M/s Krishnaveni Poultry Farm which loan was subsequently closed.
When the complainant objected for such extension of collateral security on the mortgage property the opposite party had given evasive answers and stated that within a short period the said property would be released but however failed to do so as such the complainant addressed letters dated 13.12.2017 and 14.02.2018 requesting to release the title deeds. The opposite party instead of releasing the title deeds had sent to letters dated 04.01.2018 and 12.03.2018 intimating that until the loan sanctioned to the complainant under BIO DOCTORS PLUS SCHEME the documents cannot be released.4
Further that he is paying the instalments regularly and only a sum of Rs.9 Lakhs is due, inspite of regular payment of instalments the Opposite party is not returning the original title deeds. That the Opposite party is not collecting the CTGMSE Fee in a uniformed manner but is collecting as per their wish since on 10.09.2014 the fee collected was 56,180/- on 10/06/2015 it was 83,424/- on 15.11.2016 it was 1,15,568/- and on 19.07.2017 it was 1,15000/-
when this irregular collection of CTGMSE was Questioned the Opposite party failed to give any satisfactory reason.
That initially the original title deeds were deposited with the Opposite party Bank for the loan availed by his wife for the purpose of Krishnaveni Poultry farm. When some instalments were due the Opposite party Bank had approached the DRT and filed a case under SARFAESI Act. after which the complainant had cleared the loan availed by his wife and the loan Account was closed, inspite of the same the opposite party failed to return the original title deeds but had highhandedly retained the said documents and extended the equitable mortgage over the property for the loan availed by the complainant. This act of Opposite party bank amounts to deficiency of service. In spite of se veral requests the opposite party failed to return the original documents as such having no other alternative the complainant is before this commission seeking a direction to the Opposite party to hand over the original sale deeds bearing document No.4631/2004 & 5230/2003 and to pay compensation & costs.
3) The Opposite party filed their Written version while admitting the availing of loan by the complainant under the special scheme "BIO Doctors Plus" And also the monthly equated EMIs but had opposed the complaint on the ground that, the 5 complainant had acknowledged the sanction letter extending the equitable mortgage on the hospital building, owned by the complainant that was originally mortgaged for the loan availed by his wife in the name of M/s Krishnaveni Poultry farm. Having signed the sanction letter now the complainant cannot question the extension of the equitable mortgage of Hospital building.
The opposite party further pleads that the loan availed under CGTMSE scheme also requires security of immovable property as per clause 4 b and C of Master Circular issued by the Head office of opposite party. The charge created on plant/machinery, land and building of unit is treated as primary security for the CGTMSE cover. The security is to be created as per terms of sanction specified in the sanction letter bearing No. HYD/CR/NN/22 dated 18/03/2014 which has been accepted by the complainant without demur by affixing his signature on the letter of acceptance of the terms.
The opposite party further pleads that the account of the complainant's wife in the name and style of Krishnaveni Poultry farm was classified as NPA and the mortgage security created over the hospital property was to be sought under the SARFAESI Act. after the initiation of the said proceedings the complainant and his wife cleared the loan and the complainant sought return of the title deeds of the hospital property, the opposite party bank informed that the mortgage security over the said property has been extended to the loan availed by the complainant and as such the documents cannot be returned until the said account is closed. The CGTMSE fee collected is as per prescribed norms communicating from time to time; that the opposite party never refused to release the title deeds but only required the complainant to close the loan account and receive the documents. That as the opposite party had followed the terms of sanction of loan they cannot be said to have been deficient in their services and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4) The complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A10. Mr.G.Ravi Kumar officer of Opposite party Bank filed evidence affidavit Ex. B1 to B4 marked on behalf of Opposite party.
65) Heard the opposite party counsel and perused the record.
6) Now the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the op was deficient in their services by withholding the original title deeds of the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?
3. If yes, to what extent?
7) Point No.1: The specific case of the complainant is that he is a doctor by profession and is having a clinic at Shadnagar Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, that with an intention to expand the same and to buy some new equipment he had approached the opposite party, bank for a loan of Rs 1,00,00,000 under the "BIO DOCTORS PLUS'' scheme, that as per the said scheme the machinery purchased is hypothecated to the bank as security and no other immovable property is required for the sake of security. Only in case the loan is availed for construction of a hospital building or renovation of the building such security of immovable property is required but the opposite party, bank had highhandedly retained the original documents of complainants hospital building which were deposited with the opposite party, bank earlier for the loan availed by his wife in the name of Venkateshwara Poultry farm and extended the mortgage over the said property for the loan availed by the complainant. That when the complainant questioned this act of retaining the documents, the opposite party /bank had given evasive answers, as such the complainant had addressed two letters requesting the opposite party/bank to return the original title deeds but the opposite party /bank failed to do so as such the present complaint is filed. In support of his case the complainant got marked Ex A1 to A10.
Availing of the loan by the complainant under "BIO DOCTORS PLUS" scheme under CGTMSE scheme is not in dispute. Similarly the original title deeds of the complaint's hospital building were deposited with the opposite party for the loan availed by the wife of the complainant by creating a mortgage is not in dispute.
8) Before discussing the merits of the case we would like to make a mention of the developments that took place in the instant 7 case. While this CC was pending the opposite party had filed a memo along with two documents on 8/3/2021 intimating the commission that the original documents of the complainant have been returned on 17.07.2019 and the same has been entered in the register maintained by the bank. A copy of this memo was served on the complainant upon which the complainant had replied stating that he would like to continue the complaint with regard to the other reliefs sought in the complaint.
In this backdrop it is to be observed that under exhibit B4 the opposite party had filed the copy of encumbrance certificate showing that the property had been released in the favour of the complainant i.e. two documents, sale deed bearing No. 4631/2004 & 5230/2003 have been handed over to the complainant. And a Xerox copy of relevant page of the register maintained by the bank, where in the complainant had endorsed that he had received the documents bearing No.4631/2004 & 5230/2003. In view of Ex B4 and admission by the complainant the relief no.1 sought by the complainant becomes infructuous. Therefore the only point that remains for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation.
9) The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party bank had retained the original title deeds that were deposited for the loan availed by his wife and highhandedly extended the equitable mortgage of hospital building for the loan availed by the complainant under CGTMES scheme, which is against the terms of the scheme, that under the said scheme, only the equipment or machinery purchased is hypothecated and no collateral security is required. Though the complainant alleges that for loan availed under "BIO DOCTORS PLUS'' Scheme under CGTMSE there is no requirement of any collateral security, but failed to file the terms of the scheme; on the other hand the opposite party /Bank had filed Ex B1 sanction letter along with conditions under which the loan was sanctioned; and the perusal of Ex B1 reveals that the same is signed by the complainant and under the clause 'principal security', apart from hypothecation of equipment and machinery the following is mentioned:-
8 Facility Nature of Security Margin
Term Loan Limit 1.Hypothecation Minimum 40% of
charge over project cost (Fixed
equipments and capital)
machinery to be
purchased out of
bank finance.
2.Extensionof
Equitable Mortgage
of hospital building (
including land site)
situated at
venkateshwar
Colony, Shadnagar
Village & Gram
panchayat,
FarooqnagarMandal,
Mahaboobnagar
District, standing in
the name of Dr. K.
Dilip Chandra,
Originally
mortagaged in
account of M/s.
Krishnaveni Poultry
Farm.
Having agreed for the same the complainant is estopped from alleging that the same was highhandedly extended by the opposite party /bank. Further under Ex B2 the opposite party /bank had filed the Master circular issued by head office of opposite party/Bank, wherein under clause b it is stated as follows:-
"Creation of Charge on the plant & machinery, Land & Buildings of the unit is treated as primary security for the purpose of CGTMSE Cover."
In view of the above clause and the Ex B1 sanction letter it is clear that the complainant himself had agreed for extending of the equitable mortgage over his property, hence now he cannot claim for compensation.
Based on the above discussion we are of the emphatic view that the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought. Hence we have no hesitation to dismiss the complaint.
10) In the result the complaint is dismissed. However there is no order as to costs.
9Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer on system, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on 28.05.2024.
----------------------- -----------------
Dated: 28.05.2024
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
W itnesses examined
Evidence affidavit of Evidence affidavit of
The Complainants: Opposite Parties:
PW1:Dr. K.Dilip Chandra RW1:Mr. G.Ravi Kumar
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 : Photostat copy of Letter dt.27.07.2017 from opposite party bank to M/s. Krishnaveni Pollutary Farm Ex.A2 : Photostat copy of Statement of account of Divya Hospital from 18.03.2014 to 10.04.2018.
Ex.A3 : copy of Letter dt.30.12.2017 from Assistant General Manager of Opposite party.
Ex.A4 : Photostat copy of lr.dt.04.1.2018 from opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A5 : copy of lr.dt.12.3.2018 from opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A6 :Photostat copy BIO STAR DOCTOR PLUS. Ex.A7 : Photostat Copy of notice dt.13.06.2017 Issued by Government of Telangana Tashil Office Farooqnagar. Ex.A8 : copy of Lr.dt14.02.2018 from complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A9 : copy statement of Account from Divya Hospital. Ex.A10 : Photostat copy of Lr.dt31.05.2019 from complainant to opposite party.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 : Photostat copy of Lr.dt.18.03.2014 from Opposite party to complainant.
Ex.B2 : Photostat copy of dt.29.11.2013 Master Circular from opposite party.
Ex.B3 : copy statement of Account from Divya Hospital. Ex.B4 : copy of Statement of Encumbrance on property.
SD/- SD/-
----------------------------------------
Dated: 28.5.2024